Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

London Regional Transport

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chair of London Regional Transport; and what matters were discussed.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I last met the chairman of London Regional Transport, Mr. Wilfrid Newton, on 17 October. We discussed various issues relating to LRT's finances.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Secretary of State comment on LRT's waste in pulping thousands of fare rise tickets which were scrapped because they did not have the Minister's approval? Will he assure the House that fare rises will be kept below the rate of inflation? Will he undertake to provide the substantial new public investment called for today by the London Regional Passengers Committee so that a start can be made to end the squalor on London's public transport?

Mr. Parkinson: I have had discussions with the chairman about all aspects of LRT's finances —its fares, investment programmes and overall finances—and the

results of those talks will be announced in due course. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we plan to maintain the tradition of huge increases in public investment in LRT.

Mr. Squire: Is my right hon. Friend aware how grateful I am to hear his answer to that question? Will he stress that the provision of public transport to the east of London is among the Department's priorities, given the existing imbalance between east and west London?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When people talk about the Jubilee line as a line for developers, they ignore the impact that it could have on the lives of the many people in east London who are looking forward to its arrival.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the Secretary of State admit that he has instructed LRT to produce fare increases substantially below the 15 per cent. that LRT believes that it needs? If LRT carries out his wishes, does he intend to make up the difference between that fare increase and the 15 per cent?

Mr. Parkinson: I have had discussions about the whole range of LRT's finances, its investment programme and. so on, as part of the public expenditure survey round. The result of those discussions will be announced shortly. I hope that if fare rises are lower than they would have been the hon. Lady will not be critical, because her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), in his previous incarnation as spokesman on energy, was constantly accusing me of trying to push prices up. If they go down—I am not saying that they will—I hope that the Opposition will give us credit for that.

London Traffic

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how new technology is being used to improve traffic management in London.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): New urban traffic control systems and traffic lights that adjust to changing conditions are planned to be installed at 700 junctions by 1993. Delays at these junctions should be reduced by about 12 per cent. Police traffic controllers


use closed circuit television to monitor key locations. A large-scale pilot scheme for the autoguide electronic guidance system is being planned for 1992.

Mr. Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that the great merit of this new technology is that it maximises existing road capacity and greatly improves traffic flow along existing roads? Will he give the House further details about the new Scoot system for improving the flow through traffic lights?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. The Scoot system is working extremely effectively. We have already installed about 180 signals and it is our intention to install more. My hon. Friend touches on an important point when he says that new technology can relieve congestion. He is quite correct.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing traffic chaos in London? He surely must be. What discussions is his Department having with the Home Office to try to get some police priority for traffic management in London? Is he aware that unless there is an all-out campaign involving his Department, the Home Department and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the traffic will get worse and worse and in the end people will have to walk over the roofs of the cars because that will be the fastest way of getting along the roads?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He will not be surprised to learn that, since taking office, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been looking at these matters with a great deal of urgency. We hope to be able to say something about them soon.

Mr. Cormack: When my hon. Friend is considering these matters, will he seriously consider a ban on deliveries between 7 am and 7 pm or 8 am and 8 pm because delivery vehicles are responsible for much of the chaos and congestion in London?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and it is one of the maters that we shall be considering.

Road Building

Mr. Prescott: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the new roadbuilding programme, outlined in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Parkinson: The expanded programme set out in "Roads for Prosperity" is one of the Government's priorities. We are making good progress in preparing the schemes.

Mr. Prescott: I express my sympathy with the Secretary of State for being with us today. It must have been most disappointing for him last Thursday when he awaited the call that never came, especially as the Treasury is breaking all the commitments made by his predecessor. Is the Secretary of State now backtracking on the plans in the White Paper? Was not his predecessor quite wrong to believe that the private sector would always provide the necessary private finance, as can be seen by the chaos and confusion surrounding the tunnel links in the central

London rail study? Is it not time for the Secretary of State to tackle the Treasury like a rottweiler rather than the Prime Minister's poodle?

Mr. Parkinson: I was thinking of buying a lead for my favourite rottweiler, but he is sitting opposite me and Ministers do not exchange gifts with Opposition Members. My predecessor produced an excellent White Paper. So far, we have commissioned studies and assessments on more than 40 of the schemes. I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman is reading a better class of newspaper these days. If he keeps on reading it, he will become increasingly disappointed as the good news emerges.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need roads not just for prosperity but for safety? I had just managed to convince his predecessor to come and look at the St. Michael's bridge, which is a menace. Fortunately, I do not need to ask my right hon. Friend to come because he will know it well from his youth. Will he please ensure that Lancashire county council does not rat on us and that we get the bypass because somebody will be killed if two cars meet on that terrible hump-backed bridge?

Mr. Parkinson: I know the hump-backed bridge at St. Michael's, which is near my home town, and I will do my best to ensure that my hon. Friend is happy about the future arrangements.

Mr. Alex Carlisle: Has the Secretary of State had any further studies done, to add to the studies upon studies, to estimate the extra cost to industry in Wales and the north-west of England of sitting in traffic jams on the M6 and the M1 which inhibit movement of goods to the Channel ports? Is the Secretary of State aware that ports in my constituency will have no benefit from the Channel tunnel unless drastic action is taken to improve communications?

Mr. Parkinson: I am glad to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's endorsement of the White Paper, which makes proposals for the great improvement and widening of the two roads that he mentioned. We look forward to having his support in the months ahead for the work that is to be undertaken.

Mr. Lord: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the A140, which runs through Norfolk and Suffolk, is probably one of the most dangerous roads in East Anglia? This results from a staggering increase of traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles and, more sadly, has led to a large number of fatal accidents. There was great amazement and not a little anger when it was announced that the A140 would be dualed north of Scole in Norfolk, but not south of Scole in Suffolk. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are hoping for an announcement later this year that the whole of that road will be dualed, to everybody's satisfaction?

Mr. Parkinson: One of the main features of the White Paper was its recognition that East Anglia has an inadequate road infrastructure. There are substantial plans set out in the White Paper to produce an improvement, and we shall honour them.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the likely increase of (a) road users and (b) public transport users in London as a result of the construction of the Channel tunnel terminal at King's Cross.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Department is examining the impact of the proposed terminal on the surrounding road network. The impact on the public transport network is expected to be small.

Mr. Banks: Does the Minister recall that when I saw him nearly a year ago I reported that the Channel tunnel and second London terminal projects would be chaotic and that political intervention would be required? Is he aware that confusion is now upon us and that we are in great danger of having three quarters of a tunnel, half a fast rail link and no second London terminal? When does the Minister intend to intervene to bring central political decision-making into the free market chaos which now surrounds us?

Mr. Portillo: Decisions on all these matters will be made shortly. The hon. Gentleman is alway urging me to take a strategic view, but I believe that it should he for British Rail to propose the railway line and the terminal that it wishes to build, see whether it can get private sector participation and then take a Bill through the House. If that is not successful, it is for British Rail to consider the options. If a strategic view were to be taken, I am not sure that one would not conclude that King's Cross, with its good access to the north, would be a better proposition.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: As British Rail's half-baked ideas for a Channel tunnel rail link terminating at King's Cross are now in disarray, having failed to attract any private financial support, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the available options where there is private backing for viable plans that will serve the entire United Kingdom?

Mr. Portillo: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern and the assiduous way in which he represents his constituents on these and other matters, but the project has not reached the stage that he suggests. We shall have to wait and see whether British Rail will make an announcement in the coming days and weeks about a partnership with the private sector and whether it will wish to propose a Bill. If it proposed a Bill and that measure was not successful, it would then be appropriate to consider the options. A proposal has been worked out with a great deal of time and effort and I believe that it should be considered fully.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister agree that King's Cross is already the most congested location in London both above ground and below? Is it not sheer folly to propose funnelling a further 10 million or 15 million passengers per year through an over-congested location by locating the second Channel tunnel terminus there? Is it not time to think again and consider other options?

Mr. Portillo: King's Cross is extremely well connected in terms of public transport. There are more tube lines there than in any other place in London. There are also extremely good connections to the north of England. In

that sense, it is very well connected. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to traffic congestion, he should remember that that problem will arise with any site that is chosen. My Department will be giving evidence to the Select Committee on Transport on the railway proposal and to the London borough of Camden on the lands development proposal, which will be a matter for Camden to consider.

Severn Crossing

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has drawn from the la test round of public consultation meetings in connection with revised routes for approaches to the proposed second Severn crossing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: We are still considering the many helpful comments received following the exhibitions held in June and July. I hope to issue a statement shortly concerning modifications to the routes of the approach roads.

Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider with some sympathy the suggestions being made for an intermediate link between the industrial areas of the north of Bristol and the southern relief road linking the second Severn crossing to the M5, which would be welcome to industry and commerce in the area?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes a plea for his constituents and for others nearby. The plan has considerable merit. I shall be looking to local authorities and developers to provide the resources for such a link

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that extra roads mean extra hazards and that this weekend we took a step that will involve extra danger on the roads when we put the clock forward by one hour? Does he recall the transport and road research laboratory saying that daylight saving, would reduce the numbers of serious and fatal accidents by 600 per year? Will he therefore impress on other members of the Government the need for daylight saving, which will mean life saving?

Mr. Atkins: Such matters are for the Home Office. One of the reasons why that Department is currently involved in a number of consultations is that there are many differences of opinion—not least among trade unions and between people living in the north and those in the south. No doubt common sense proposals will come out of those consultations, and I look forward to that happening as much as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that river pilots are very concerned about the siting of the bridge and, in particular, about its effect on access to the port of Sharpness in my constituency? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that their views will be taken fully into consideration before any decision is taken?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir.

Underground Railways (London)

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning future plans for new underground railways serving east London.

Mr. Portillo: We are considering the cases for schemes proposed in the central London rail study and for extending the Jubilee line to docklands and Stratford. A


key factor for the Jubilee line will be the contributions forthcoming from developers who will benefit from the line.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that there is also an important cross-rail link? Does he recall that the concept of such a link dates back to the Royal Commission on London traffic of 1905? Which does the Minister regard as more important? The Waterloo to Canary wharf line is concept of Messrs. Olympia and York and essentially a developer's railway. If the Minister gives preference to that rather than to the cross-rail link, will he not be favouring the stockbrokers and providing them with seats for tomorrow, rather than seats for east London straphangers of today?

Mr. Portillo: The Jubilee line is important in public transport terms and would provide an important connection to Stratford, which I thought would be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who spoke earlier. I feel sure that the people of east London would find it of considerable value. It would be of value also in terms of regenerating the inner city, which the Labour party supports. I cannot make a statement about our priorities as between the Jubilee line and the east-west cross-rail—that decision will be made shortly—but as developers also benefit from the Jubilee line it must be right that we should attempt to secure the maximum contribution from them and to minimise the contribution that the taxpayer will have to make.

Mr. Haselhurst: I am embarrassed to be in even partial agreement with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but is my hon. Friend aware that however admirable the idea of extensions to the Underground system, which I support, they are no substitute for the east-west cross-rail tunnel, which would do much to relieve pressure on Liverpool Street station and thus assist commuters entering London from Essex constituencies?

Mr. Portillo: The east-west cross-rail showed up very well in the central rail study as being a decongesting railway. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that the Jubilee line also provides an important link between east London and the west end, and its extension would help to establish docklands even more firmly as a new centre of activity. That in itself could also help to relieve congestion in the central area.

Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that south-east London is the forgotten corner of the city when it comes to the tube system? Can he give any grounds for hope that the proposed extensions through east London will cross the river, to give hundreds of thousands of south-east Londoners more alternatives to British Rail services?

Mr. Portillo: There are two proposals on the stocks. One is to route the Jubilee line through the Greenwich peninsula, but that is a more expensive option which would not provide good connections to the rest of the network south of the river. The other is a Lewisham extension of the docklands light railway, on which I recently received representations from a number of hon. Members and others—but as I have not received a formal proposal from London Regional Transport I am not in a position to comment on that scheme.

Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware that while many people living outside London view investment in its infrastructure with sympathy and hope, they too have their priorities for modernisation? I refer principally to the cross-city line in Birmingham. I hope that if my hon. Friend approves all the Underground schemes proposed for London there will be a few shillings left in his coffers to undertake investment schemes in our area.

Mr. Portillo: The Government are extremely even-handed in such matters. Only last week it was my great pleasure to announce our investment in the Manchester metrolink, which I am sure is a popular decision. The proposal for the Birmingham cross-city electrification has just arrived on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I am sure that he will deal with it quickly.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the need for a fast rail link between Scotland and the Channel tunnel.

Mr. Parkinson: We have received a small number of such representations.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the uncertainty hanging over the link between in the tunnel and London threatens to make nonsense of British Rail's plans to run a through service from Scotland to the continent? Does he agree that such a service is vital if Scotland and the regions are to benefit from the single market and the tunnel? Will he undertake to ensure that it will be in place by 1993, as BR plans, whatever the problems may be about private finance for the link with London?

Mr. Parkinson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. The position has been completely misunderstood. The high-speed link is not the only proposed link with the Channel tunnel and in fact will not be available until around the turn of the century. Arrangements are now being made, and large sums are being invested in both road and rail infrastructure, to ensure that Scotland and the regions have access to the tunnel from the day it is opened.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the east and west coast routes into Scotland are extremely good. British Rail has a statutory obligation to present its plans by 31 December to ensure that the regions—including Scotland—benefit, and it will be doing just that.

Mr. Amos: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a second terminal at King's Cross is vital to meet the needs of the north of England and Scotland? Will he examine the quality of service on the Newcastle-Carlisle route, which is appalling at present?

Mr. Parkinson: As I said earlier, British Rail is under an obligation to present its plans, and it is working hard on that. I cannot honestly answer my hon. Friend's question about the Newcastle-Carlisle line, but if he would care to write to me I will certainly look into the matter.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State is well acquainted with the city of Aberdeen through his previous job as Secretary of State for Energy. Will he now look


particularly at the rail communication links from Aberdeen, and at the clear demand that has emerged from Grampian regional council for a scheme to link Aberdeen with Edinburgh and the Channel tunnel through electrification?

Mr. Parkinson: I will bring the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of British Rail. As part of the plans for Scotland, two major freight terminals are being considered, one of them at Gartcosh; I cannot remember offhand the site of the other. The Government's whole aim is to ensure that the regions benefit from the best possible access to the tunnel.

Road Building

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles the expanded road programme will add to the trunk road network; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: The expanded programme will add more than 2,700 miles of new or widened roads to the trunk road network.

Mr. Gregory: I congratulate my hon. Friend. Will he confirm that the increase in capital expenditure by the present Government is nearly 60 per cent. higher than that in 1978–79, the last full year of Socialist government? How much of the proportion that my hon. Friend has to spend will be spent in Yorkshire?

Mr. Atkins: The expanded programme will result in 51 new miles of road in Yorkshire, together with 51 miles of improved roads. All in all, that is worth some £430 million. We put our money where our mouths are.

Ms. Quin: Is the Minister aware of the strength of feeling in the north-east about the fact that the expanded road programme does not deal properly with the upgrading of the A1, either in Yorkshire or between Newcastle and Edinburgh, and also about the failure to address the problem of a proper cross-country road between Newcastle and Carlisle? Will he review the programme to meet those concerns?

Mr. Atkins: I spent all of Thursday in Newcastle talking to a wide variety of people—about the A1, among other things. They were quite satisfied with the commitment that I offered them, which was also offered in the White Paper —that we were reviewing the whole of the A1 in regard to motorway status. As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will know, making a motorway from an existing trunk road is not as easy as it may at first appear. All those points are, however, being considered urgently.

Sir Hal Miller: Is the Minister aware that any delay in the expanded programme will prolong uncertainty and blight for those affected and add to the costs of congestion and later construction? Will he therefore do his best to ensure that construction is carried out as per the programme?

Mr. Atkins: That is certainly my intention.

Mr. Snape: Is it true that the Minister's mouth is not big enough to take the Birmingham northern relief road which has been delayed for a considerable time while the project has been hawked around the private sector? If and when it

is eventually built, will the developers pay for the cost of providing policing, ambulances and lighting services along that road, or will those charges fall on the taxpayer?

Mr. Atkins: I should say that many of my hon. Friends and I are delighted with the number of people who have expressed interest in the Birmingham northern relief road. We are very pleased to have been approached by three major consortia. If that demonstrates how this scheme and many others will work, we shall be delighted. While I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's quip, I remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is known as "Humber mouth".

British Rail (Public Service Obligation)

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in reducing the central Government public service obligation grant to British Rail in line with financial targets set in 1986.

Mr. Parkinson: The objectives that we set in 1986 called for a 25 per cent. reduction in British Rail's grant requirement by the current financial year. British Rail succeeded in achieving this target a year early, in 1988–89.

Mr. Sumberg: May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's answer? Is not the way forward a combination of public and private capital? In that context, may I say how grateful my constituents are to his Department for the investment in the Manchester metrolink which will considerably improve communications between Bury and Manchester as well as in the south of Manchester?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, the metrolink is a good example of how the public sector and the private sector can co-operate to produce an improved service for the citizens of a very fine city.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not clear to the Minister that every time the PSO grant is cut while British Rail is asked to improve its investment in new services, and improve safety and services to the customer, the customer pays through the nose? Is he aware that British Rail is in danger of becoming one of the most expensive, but not one of the best, railway systems in Europe?

Mr. Parkinson: I have to admit to the hon. Lady that there is a difference in philosophy between her party and mine on this matter. We believe in cutting the grant and increasing investment. The Opposition believe in increasing the grant and reducing investment. The net result of that was ever more heavily subsidised lines getting into ever greater disrepair. We thought that that was a foolish policy, so we changed it.

Mr. Franks: Does my right hon. Friend accept that British Rail operates under the apparent inconvenience of having customers, not least the inconvenience of having customers who expect a modicum of service? When he next talks to the chairman of British Rail, will he inform him that while the first faltering steps to improve the service have been taken, there is still a long way to go before the appalling service is improved?

Mr. Parkinson: British Rail is certainly open to criticism, and I have received many letters. But it is quite wrong to pretend that the system is not slowly but steadily improving. A large investment is being made, and I wish


that once in a while people would give British Rail credit where it is due for improvements in services—and there is credit due.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Secretary of State asking us to believe that it is pure coincidence that countries such as West Germany and France, which have a higher PSO level, also have lower fares, higher quality and a safer system? That fact has been confirmed by the Government's own central transport consultative committee. As he is about to abandon the plan for the privatisation of British Rail, will he now set British Rail new financial targets that do not lead to exorbitant fare increases accompanied by a poorer quality of service?

Mr. Parkinson: We shall shortly announce the new objectives for British Rail. We see no point in subsidising journeys for which people are prepared to pay a fair price, but we see the case for subsidising rural areas where it is impossible to make the service pay. We think, and I repeat, that the policy of the Greater London council—the last example of the Labour party in charge of a public transport system—of increasing subsidies and cutting investment produced disastrous results for London Transport, which is why we are having to sort it out.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British Rail's capital investment programme is running at record levels? Has he been able to approve any specific additions to it recently?

Mr. Parkinson: British Rail's investment programme is running much higher in real terms than it was under the last Labour Government. When the public expenditure settlement is announced, my hon. Friend will note that those figures have increased. Unlike the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), we do not dream up schemes that will never come to fruition. Since I arrived at the Department, I have approved orders for more than £1 billion worth of new equipment for British Rail, LRT and local authorities.

Women and Transport

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has undertaken or plans to undertake into women and transport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Portillo: The Department has undertaken, and is undertaking, research into various aspects of transport. The needs of women as one category of user are always taken into account.

Mrs. Mahon: I welcome any research into this much-neglected subject, but will the Minister give an assurance that the conclusions of the research will be properly resourced? More important, will he say why, in view of the Home Office's launch last week of a drive to make London a safer place in which to travel for women, Southern Region is cutting staff? The Dartford line may have no staff at night or at weekends. Sexual attacks have been prevalent on that line in the past.

Mr. Portillo: It is important to see the whole pattern of events. The resources of the British Transport police are being increased. Network SouthEast is lighting car parks and stations and improving the environment for its pasengers. The article that appeared in the Evening

Standard, on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) leapt with such alacrity, referred to an internal consultation document that is yet to be considered even by the trade unions, let alone passengers. It was therefore premature to react to that article. There are already a number of unmanned stations on British Rail. Ticket barriers are to be phased out. Throughout the European Community, such barriers exist only in this country and the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. David Martin: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he were a woman he would find what we men find when travelling on the A3 between Portsmouth and London—unacceptable traffic jams on the Guildford bypass? I hope that my hon. Friend will do all that he can to sort this out as soon as possible.

Mr. Portillo: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right.

Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that women have become not less but more fearful of travelling on public transport in London over the past few months? His recent announcements about increases in the number of London Transport police do not go far enough. What will he do to ensure a proper level of policing at Finsbury Park tube station, which many women in my constituency are frightened to use?

Mr. Portillo: I recently had the pleasure of visiting Finsbury Park station, at which a new British Transport police station has recently been established, and from where it will police the Victoria, Northern and District lines. The hon. Lady said that women have become more fearful, but I must tell her that the figures are much better. For example, for the first six months of 1989, robbery on the tube is down by 42 per cent.; assault on passengers is down by 13 per cent.; and total crime on the Underground is down by 8 per cent. I attribute that to the many measures that have been taken by the British Transport police in increasing its complement, and by the fact that it has set up 42 deep-level stations, from which radio systems can now operate, thereby bringing fast response to crime.

Buses (London)

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure a more flexible approach to the planning of bus transport in London.

Mr. Portillo: The restructuring of London Buses Ltd. into separate subsidiaries will encourage further competition. London Regional Transport plans to increase the proportion of the network contracted out to 40 per cent. by 1992.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that ultimately an improvement in London bus services depends upon much greater deregulation, a tantalising example of which was seen during the bus strike when the Grey-Greens were able to run? In the meantime, will my hon. Friend urge on London Regional Transport a policy of listening to its new and excellent area managers, who are listening to the public and offering to provide services that the public want and will use, such as a minibus service through Battersea square? Will he encourage London Regional Transport to give such schemes the go-ahead?

Mr. Portillo: I think that London Regional Tranport listens carefully to its area managers. The background to


the position in my hon. Friend's constituency is that London Regional Transport has been conducting a major survey into the services that should be provided in that area. It intends to come forward with proposals for consultation in the new year. It has also announced its intention to put the new network in Wandsworth out to competitive tender during 1990. I think therefore that in every respect that meets my hon. Friend's wishes. London Regional Transport is considering proposals from residents for a minibus service for north Battersea.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Victoria and Albert Museum

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of the Victoria and Albert museum to discuss the future funding of the museum's photographic collection.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I meet the director of the Victoria and Albert museum from time to time to discuss current issues, but I have no plans at present to do so specifically to discuss the future funding of the photographic collection.

Mr. Boyes: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the curator of the photography section at the Victoria and Albert museum on his excellent work, especially in putting on the 150 years of photography exhibition? I understand that there is strong support in the Victoria and Albert for photography. All I would ask the Minister to do in terms of funding is to ensure that there is no fall in funding for the gallery. However, while I have his ear, may I ask him whether, given that our proceedings in the Chamber are now being televised, he will support my plea to allow still photographers to take pictures in the Chamber as well?

Mr. Luce: I shall think about the hon. Gentleman's last question. On the first, I know the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in photography. I join him in congratulating the Victoria and Albert and its curator on the work that they do. There has recently been an excellent photographic exhibition and there are plans for relocating the photographic gallery, which shows the very strong support there for photography.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as photography has a proud British heritage, it is right that the Victoria and Albert should celebrate this in its exhibition? Does he agree that the museum can rely on the Government's good will for funding, especially as the revenue funding has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms and the capital programme by 50 per cent. since the Conservative party came to power?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is no shadow of doubt that there has been an overall increase in real resources. Resources for the V and A's running costs have increased by 28 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. There is also, as my hon. Friend knows, an important centre for photography and television in Bradford, which is an extension of the national institution and which does much good work.

National Museums (Funding)

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission to discuss the level of funding of national museums.

Mr. Luce: I meet the chairman of the Museum and Galleries Commission regularly and discuss a wide range of subjects, which have included museum and gallery funding.

Mrs. Clwyd: Did the Minister discuss with the chairman of the commission its claim that the Government are grossly underfunding our largest museums? When will the right hon. Gentleman face up to the crisis in our museums? The director of the Tate has accused the Government of making their calculations on the back of an envelope. Half the Tate's British collection is in store because the building is falling apart.

Mr. Luce: I am surprised that the hon. Lady says that there is gross underfunding and that she does not welcome the recent decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to invest an extra £21 million in a major extension and redevelopment of the national museum of Wales. The hon. Lady accuses the Government of underfunding and cannot even welcome that investment. That is extraordinary. It is extraordinary also that she accuses the Government of underfunding, when in 1979–80 funding for museums and galleries was £54 million whereas today it is £158 million—a real increase of 25 per cent. If the hon. Lady thinks that the Government are underfunding the museums, what does she think that the Labour Government were doing at the end of the 1970s?

Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the drain of our artistic heritage overseas as a result of the recent rise in the price of goods at auction and the inability of our museums and galleries to bid competitively to retain those art treasures in this country. Will my right hon. Friend review that situation and consider whether to review the whole procedure for the licensing of artistic exports?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to put his finger on the fact that the dramatic increase in the prices of works of art puts extra pressure on the available resources for saving our most important works of heritage. However, throughout the 1980s, we have had the national heritage memorial fund, which has spent well over £100 million in saving important works of art for this country. If my hon. Friend intended to put his finger on the level of the purchase grant, I must point out that I said a year ago that I would look at the way in which the purchase grant was working. I ask him to be patient for a little longer, while I try to take decisions. The first priority must be to find money for the fabric, building and maintenance of our national institutions.

Mr. Fisher: It is clear that the Minister thinks that he knows better than the chairmen of the five national galleries who told him and the Prime Minister in July that unless he provided enormously increased funding for those museums and galleries, the effects would be disastrous. Did the Minister give a specific assurance to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts in January 1988, when he announced three-year funding, that if there were exceptional circumstances, such as a rise in inflation,


he would reopen the books for the national museums and consider their funding again? Will he now redeem that assurance to the Select Committee, reopen the books, pay attention to what the chairmen of those galleries are saying and provide the extra funding needed?

Mr. Luce: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does not join me in confirming the figures, which show a real increase in support for the national museums and galleries, although he knows perfectly well that there has been an increase. Having said that, it was two years ago that I introduced three-year funding. I hope that I read in the hon. Gentleman's question the fact that he does not disagree with the concept of three-year funding. It is right to say that the levels of inflation in recent months have undermined three-year funding to some extent. The Government as a whole are clearly committed to maintaining support for the arts.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health of our museums is best shown not only by funding, but by the number of museums that have opened in recent years and the number of people who attend those museums? Will he also take the opportunity to reject the suggestion made recently by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that there is a Government plan to introduce compulsory admission charges? Will he confirm that it is still a voluntary scheme?

Mr. Luce: On the latter point, it is wholly for the trustees to decide whether admission charges should be introduced. That remains our policy and it is the right policy. We should let them decide how best to proceed with that matter. The Government have a fine record in terms of the catalogue of refurbishment of our national institutions—our museums and galleries. There have been extensions, such as Bodelwyddan castle, the national portrait gallery and the Tate gallery in Liverpool, various redevelopments at the Tate gallery itself, the Clore gallery extension and many other redevelopments. In the past decade, about 10 galleries at the British museum have been refurbished.

Arts Funding

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss the level of arts funding.

Mr. Luce: I meet the chairman regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Haynes: I want to know what the Minister is playing at as regards the Arts Council. He makes statements in the House and statements in Select Committees. He knows full well that inflation is running at 7·6 per cent. and that the Arts Council is looking to him for additional funds, yet he offers a measly 2 per cent. What is he playing at?

Mr. Luce: rose——

Mr. Haynes: I have not finished yet. The Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and say that he is going to help the Arts Council—or else I shall be having a word with him afterwards.

Mr. Luce: I shall really miss the hon. Gentleman when he retires from the House.
We have increased resources for the Arts Council in real terms. The Government are committed to maintaining taxpayers' support for the arts. In 1987, I introduced three-year funding for the arts for the first time ever, with a 16 per cent. overall increase for the Arts Council for that period. That is a fine record and I reiterate my statement that the Government are committed to maintaining support for the arts.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Trade Unions

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service trade unions; and what matters were discussed.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Luce): I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters is raised. I met the Civil Service unions in June this year to discuss planned changes in Civil Service recruitment.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister give an assurance to civil servants working at the south bank complex and in the national galleries and museums that their pay arrangements will be conducted and their pay negotiated nationally, that their employers at the south bank complex and in the national galleries and museums will honour those national rates of pay and that there will be no detriment or severance of those conditions?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in extending arts questions into Civil Service questions. I recognise the significance of his remarks. He rightly implies that the national galleries and museums operate Civil Service pay and conditions. Of course, the national structures continue but within that context the whole Civil Service is moving to a more flexible pay system. That is being developed not only in agencies but within the Civil Service, and the same applies to the national galleries and museums.

Mr. Barnes: Was the issuing of fire certificates discussed? Has the Minister issued fire certificates or been involved in the issuing of fire certificates for all the buildings for which he is responsible, as required by the Fire Precautions Act 1971? If such certificates have not been issued, will he prosecute himself?

Mr. Luce: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to national museums and galleries or whether his question goes wider. If he is talking about the museums and galleries, his question goes beyond the Civil Service in the broadest sense. The whole question of fire regulations is of concern. The local authorities have conducted a review of the institutions. They have given their views and they are being taken into account in the discussions.

Mr. Higgins: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, will he draw their attention to his excellent response to the fifth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee this afternoon, which shows that


considerable progress is being made in the "next steps" programme, which under present plans will affect no fewer than 180,000 civil servants?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will, of course, have seen the reply that has now been given to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. Since the House last discussed these issues in July, there have been further changes and more progress on "next steps". Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is launching the Laboratory of the Government Chemist as an executive agency, while the Historic Royal Palaces Agency was launched as an executive agency of the Department of the Environment on 1 October. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has announced five new candidates to become defence support agencies and they will be established in due course. By July next year about 20 agencies will be established.

Mr. Holt: My right hon. Friend has had conversations with the trade unions. Does he agree that at no time has there been any truth in the rumours that civil servants do not wish to move to the north of England, and that the moving of the Departments earmarked for the north of England will go ahead?

Mr. Luce: I can assure my hon. Friend that I know of no evidence of people refusing. Of course there is an option in relocation for civil servants working in London and the south-east not to go with the job if it is moved elsewhere. Only a week or so ago I opened a new headquarters for the occupational health service in Edinburgh and that service is part of the Cabinet Office. It is important to note that 34,000 jobs are under review for relocation. That does not mean to say that they will all he relocated, but that number are under review for relocation outside the south-east.

Dr. Marek: I welcome the fact that the Minister says that the issue of fire certificates is a matter of concern. He will be aware that the Home Office has responsibility for issuing fire certificates for most Civil Service buildings outside the Ministry of Defence. He will also know that there is a four-year backlog for that. As the Minister with responsibility for the Civil Service, is he concerned about that? I hope that he is. What proposals does the Minister have to ensure that that backlog is dealt with as expeditiously as possible?

Mr. Luce: Each Secretary of State must answer for his own Department. I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will take it seriously and let him have a reply. Each Minister is responsible for his Department and the standards within that Department. In reply to an earlier question, I could respond only in connection with my direct responsibilities for national museums and galleries.

Civil Servants (Discipline)

Mr. Speller: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many past or present members of the Civil Service have been disciplined for incidents of political bias or breach of confidentiality since 1979; and what channels of communication are in place for civil servants who wish to make representations that Ministers are making improper use of their ministerial powers.

Mr. Luce: About 10 on average each year, but only limited information is held centrally. There are guidelines set out for civil servants for dealing with matters of conscience.

Mr. Speller: I thank my right hon. Friend for his rather partial answer. As there are two sides to the playing field, when civil servants want to make representations about a Minister abusing his power, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is a level playing field for them as there is for the Minister if a civil servant should abuse his basic right or obligation to neutrality?

Mr. Luce: Of course every Minister is accountable directly to the House of Commons and the House can hold every Minister to account. However, there are special rules and conditions for civil servants. Those guidelines, of which the Armstrong guidelines are the most recent, give civil servants the option to appeal first to their manager and then to their permanent secretary. There is an ultimate right of appeal on matters of conscience. They can go to the professional head of the Civil Service. No one, I might point out, has yet done that.

Mr. Rooker: How many of those incidents have involved civil servants who have refused to carry out politically biased work for their Ministers?

Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman keeps a sense of perspective, he will appreciate that there have been 10 cases of breaches of confidentiality of one kind or another out of a total Civil Service membership of 567,000. We really must keep this in proportion. The vast bulk of civil servants are loyal and impartial to the elected Government of the day. That is my experience and I am sure that that was the experience of Labour Governments.

Plain English

Mr. Hague: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in his campaign for plain English in, and ease of completion of, Government forms.

Mr. Luce: Since 1982 we have saved about £14 million on our review of Government forms. We have made them easier to understand and we regularly win awards from the plain English campaign. We are keeping up this pressure.

Mr. Hague: The fifth progress report on Government forms states that 40,000 Government forms have been reviewed, 15,000 have been redesigned and 9,000 have been scrapped. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to continue the momentum of that excellent work, and be particularly vigilant with the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security whose forms must be completed by the public?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right and the figures to which he referred show what we have achieved in the past 10 years in redesigning or scrapping forms. We regard that task as a relentless obligation. I am inclined to follow the advice of Winnie the Pooh by A. A. Milne when Pooh said, "Long words bother me." That is good advice when considering Government forms.

Mr. Vaz: I support the Minister's campaign for plain English in Government forms. When can we look forward to a campaign for plain Gujarati, plain Punjabi and plain


Urdu in Government forms? Many people speak those languages, but they are not, unfortunately, spoken by the Minister.

Mr. Luce: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman in that I cannot speak evey language under the sun. I am a great believer in keeping to plain English. That is our objective. There is a plain English campaign and we should make forms as simple as possible. We should keep the words and the language simple. That is our objective.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although long words may bother him, many of his ministerial colleagues do not suffer in a similar manner? Only last week we had an extraordinary array of words —for example, "hospitalisation"—and we heard "level playing field" this afternoon. Could every member of the ministerial team be supplied with a copy of Sir Ernest Gower's "Plain Words" and be asked to use it, mark it, learn it and inwardly digest it?

Mr. Luce: I still stick to the view of Winnie the Pooh that "Long words bother me." If everyone follows that advice, we will be much better off.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister agree with the plain English of Lord Hailsham, who said that it was no business of the press office of the Prime Minister to undermine the authority of Ministers? Does Civil Service discipline apply to Mr. Ingham?

Mr. Luce: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asked that question about Mr. Ingham, of all people, who served the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) with great distinction in a former Government, as well as serving my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If anyone could have shown his impartiality to an elected Government today, he has done just that.

Ambulance Service

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request from the Government concerning a statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Health in The Sunday Correspondent to the effect that the Army has been put into preparedness, in case "some hothead somewhere" starts putting public safety at risk in the ambulance men's dispute? I am sure that you will be aware that such a move by the

Government would be extremely dangerous, particularly when the ambulance men's union is merely asking for the dispute to be referred to arbitration, and that at no stage, at no time and nowhere have the ambulance men refused to answer 999 calls and undertake 999 duties. I am sure that you will agree that it is important to have a statement on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement, and I do not think that much has changed since we had a statement on this matter last week.

Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1501) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

CUSTOMS DUTIES

That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 5) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1610) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Garel-Jones].

Question agreed to.

European Community Documents

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House I will put together the three motions relating to European Community documents.

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 8819/89 relating to gas appliances be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 8446/89 relating to nutrition labelling be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 5032/89 relating to public takeover bids be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]

FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL [Lords] (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Allocation of time to Bills),
That the Report [18 October] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That—

(1) The order in which proceedings on Consideration are taken shall be amendments to Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1. Clause 8, Schedule 2, Clauses 9 to 13, New Clauses relating to Part I of the Bill, New Schedules relating to Part I of the Bill amendments to Clauses 14 to 22, New Clauses relating to Part H of the Bill, New Schedules relating to Part II of the Bill, remaining New Clauses, amendments to Clauses 23 to 26 and remaining New Schedules.
(2) On the allotted day which under the Order [17th July] is be be given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, the proceedings on Consideration shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of those proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of that Table

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Amendments up to the end of Clause 13, New Clauses relating to Part I of the Bill, and new Schedules relating to Part I of the Bill
9 p.m.


Remaining proceedings on Consideration
10 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Football Spectators Bill [Lords]

[ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION OF THIS PART

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
'( ) The Secretary of State shall not make a designation under subsection (2) above without giving the Football Membership Authority an opportuniy to make representations about the proposed designation, and taking any representations he receives into account.'.
This is the first of many amendments which carry forward undertakings which I gave in Committee. The House will be discussing several Government amendments today, many of them tabled in response to points raised by hon. Members in Committee. Other Government amendments are designed to clarify the drafting of the Bill and to spell out rather more of the workings of the Football Licensing Authority than we had time to do in Committee. I hope that the House will regard them as helpful. Amendment No. 1 is in response to a proposal made by the Opposition.
When the Standing Committee discussed the Secretary of State's designation of matches to which the provisions of the Bill would apply, I promised to consider tabling an amendment on report which would ensure that discussions with the Football Membership Authority would take place before any such designation was made. Amendment No. 1 gives effect to that undertaking. It requires the Secretary of State, before designating any matches, to provide the FMA with the opportunity to make representations about the proposed designation. The amendment also makes it clear that any views expressed by the FMA must be taken into account by the Secretary of State before he makes a designation order in accordance with clause 2(1).
I am sure that the House will agree that the advice of the FMA should be available to the Secretary of State to assist him in reaching such decisions. The amendment ensures that that will be the case, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Denis Howell: Both in this and in other amendments the Minister has sought to meet points that were made in Committee, and we thank him for doing so. It gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister about a statement that appeared on the tapes in the late morning to the effect that the Secretary of State has agreed that there should be pilot schemes with one club in each division, and that they should last for 12 months. I should like to know whether that statement is correct. Can the Minister confirm that he will be taking that line of action and recommending it to the House during the afternoon?

Mr. Moynihan: I am more than happy to assist the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell)


on that point. If the right hon. Gentleman has accurately outlined it, and I am sure he has, and if it is as he has stated it, the statement is totally without foundation and inaccurate. There will be an opportunity to discuss other amendments relating to the phasing in of the technology, but the position remains as was stated by me in Committee and as it was placed on record last Friday. Whatever the source, I can categorically state that the statement is inaccurate.

Mr. Howell: I shall not detain the House on that point. I am sorry that that is not the case, as we should have welcomed it. Since every other Minister of independence in the Government has declared his independence this weekend, I am sorry to find that the Minister for Sport intends to be the last poodle in the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 1, line 15, after 'above' insert—'(a)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 to 30.

Mr. Moynihan: The amendments relate to the application of the national membership scheme to international matches and to matches between Football League and non-league clubs. The question how best to treat these matches was considered at length in Committee. The Government have made it clear that their intention is that matches played at Wembley and matches between league and non-league teams played at a league ground should be designated and that the scheme should apply to them. However, we have always emphasised that, when it comes to how the scheme should be applied to such matches, special arrangements will be necessary.
It would be unreasonable to expect, say, Italian supporters making a one-off trip to Wembley to see their national team play England to be members of the scheme. Similarly with supporters of a non-league team who do not attend Football League matches but who wish to see their team in what may be their only game against league opposition. There must be special arrangements for these categories of spectators so that they can be authorised to attend designated matches without being members of the scheme.
As I explained in Committee, this is where the Football Licensing Authority has an important role to play. The amendments will enable the Secretary of State, when designating a match or matches, to provide that spectators admitted to a ground are authorised spectators, subject to special conditions, and that they should be treated as part of the licence.
No doubt the Football Licensing Authority will wish to discuss with the local police, with the club or, in the case of Wembley, with the Wembley authorities just what the special arrangements for the matches should be. They will be able to take full account of the circumstances of the individual match and of the ground and decide the most appropriate arrangements under which a particular game can be played. They may wish to make different arrangements at different matches and for different parts of the ground. It is important that they must be free to

decide what is best in any particular case—a point put very strongly by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in Committee.
Therefore, I commend the amendments to the House. I hope that it will share my view about the importance of the FLA being able to decide, in consultation with the interested parties locally, the most appropriate arrangements under which a particular match in these categories should be played. It is important that appropriate measures to minimise the threat of violence at these matches are put in place. The amendments mean that the FLA will be able to achieve that in the most appropriate way.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'; and

(b) may provide, in relation to the match or description of match designated by the order or any description of match falling withint the designation, that spectators admitted to the ground shall be authorised spectators to the extent, and subject to any restrictions or condidtions, determined in pursuance of the order by the licensing authority under this Part of this Act.'.

No. 27, in page 2, line 2, after 'if, insert—
'(a)'

No. 28, in page 2, line 4, after 'match', insert
';or
(b) he is an authorised spectator by virtue of subsection (3)(b) above,'.

Clause 2

OFFENCES RELATING TO UNAUTHORISED ATTENDANCE AT DESIGNATED FOOTBALL MATCHES

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 2, line 40 at end insert—
'( ) Where a person is charged under subsection (1) above with an offence of entering or remaining on premises, and was at the time of the alleged offence not disqualified from being a member of the national football membership scheme, it shall be a defence to prove that he was allowed to enter the premises as a spectator by a person reasonably appearing to him to have lawful authority to do so.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 32, 33, and 34.

Amendment No. 55, in page 5, line 29, at end insert—
'(2A) In case of serious emergency or the failure of computer equipment the senior officers of police attending premises at which a designated football match is being or is intended to be played shall have power to direct that the national football membership scheme shall be temporarily suspended in its application to those premises and to that match and, where a direction is given under this section, section 2 and 7 of this Act shall be of no effect during the period of suspension.'.

Mr. Lloyd: Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 provide in one form or another for emergency admission to grounds. Considerable thought was given in Committee to whether it was right for the offence of unlawful entry in clause 2(1) to be absolute—that is, to have no defence provided in the Bill.
The Government have reflected further in the light of these debates and believe it right to provide a defence, which amendment No. 31 achieves. Hon. Members were rightly troubled by the possibility of a dangerous crush developing outside grounds, despite everything that we are


doing to try to avoid that, and it becoming essential to reduce the risk of serious injury or loss of life for those outside the ground to be admitted quickly and safely without proper checks on membership.
In such circumstances it would be impractical to distinguish properly between members and non-members of the scheme. We therefore feel it right to exempt from the offence innocent people who were not members of the scheme—those who had perhaps joined the queue unaware of the requirement for a card or who were unintentionally caught up in the crowd.
There is one important qualification to this defence. The House will agree that it would be nonsense to extend the new defence to persons disqualified from the scheme. That would create an incentive for the very hooligans whom the scheme would seek to exclude to kick up enough trouble outside the grounds for the club and the police to let them in. They may indeed try that on, but with the defence as proposed here they could not be let in free of the criminal offence of unlawful entry; and if they were not seeking admission, it would be difficult to justify their presence in the midst of a crowd queuing at the turnstiles for that purpose.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Minister suggests that someone be let in without a card because of possible problems outside, but how will anyone know that such a person is disqualified—since he will not have a card, or will claim not to have one?

Mr. Lloyd: That is right. The whole purpose of the amendment is to permit clubs not to be in breach of their licence in an emergency by letting in such people, since there will be no opportunity to check, but the person who has come in and is disqualified can be prosecuted if it becomes apparent at some stage that he is disqualified. But the law cannot be used against the club.
The Government have consistently maintained that any provision for adapting admission procedures in an emergency will not be covered in the Bill because the aim of the Bill is to ensure that the licence is the means whereby the detailed requirements are made. So amendment No. 32 introduces the mandatory requirement for the scheme so to provide. Amendment No. 33 qualifies the offence in clause 9(1) of admitting spectators to unlicensed premises by the new defence that the responsible person did so in an emergency.
Amendment No. 34 requires the licensing authority to consider arrangements to deal with emergencies when granting a licence to admit spectators. Implicitly, that puts within the scope of a licence the provision to admit spectators in an emergency, safeguarding the licensee from an offence under clause 10(10) in such circumstances.
I should explain two additional points to make the new arrangements clear. I mentioned that the new defence of acting on lawful authority would not and should not apply to those disqualified from the scheme, and I am sure that that is right. However, the same is not necessary in respect of offences by the club, which could not be expected to discriminate between disqualified persons and others in an emergency. The offences in clauses 9 and 10 should reflect that, as provided by amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
My other point is about the practical meaning of the term "emergency". The Bill does not explicitly define the term and I suspect that the search for a precise definition would prove fruitless. There are many degrees of

emergency, and in my perception they all carry a genuine risk of injury or loss of life, whether actual or potential. The term is not a convenient form of shorthand simply for an operating delay or incovenience. The various provisions for emergencies in the Bill and, in due course, in the scheme, will come into play at a football ground only when such a risk actually arises. The Bill does not set out who should declare whether an emergency exists. It is the club's responsibility to get that right, since it as the club's licence that is at stake and it is the club which would risk committing an offence under clauses 9 or 10.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend confirm that an emergency means just that, and that in terms of the spirit of the Bill such a situation arises only at the last minute? Does he agree that the Government view the events in Stockholm and the decision by the police there to let in people without tickets to that rather sad game as totally exceptional? Will he confirm that the main thrust of his argument and of the Bill is that such an occasion would be very rare and would be discouraged by the Government?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend well understands the Government's position. It is not our perception that the solution to problems that arise is to let people in whether or not they are members or whether membership cards are inspected. The club authorities and the police will have to take sensible and responsible decisions about what to do in an emergency when it has materialised, or when it looks as if one is about to occur.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Perhaps the Minister would give us a practical explanation, because we are all anxious to get the matter right. If the chief police officer at the match saw many people outside the turnstiles and the possibility of a crush, could he declare that an emergency? Could he have the gates opened in order to reduce the risk to life and limb of people who were outside the turnstiles?

Mr. Lloyd: If in his judgment the responsible police office thought that there was a real possibility of injury, he would recommend the right steps, which could well be to open the gates and let people in under the emergency provisions that I am introducing. That is what the amendment allows, and what it is for. I should emphasise that it is for the club authorities and the police on the spot to make the judgment. It is for them to judge the situation and decide whether a real emergency exists or is about to occur. There does not need to be injury before this provision comes into effect, but there must be a real possibility of it. As I said earlier, it would not be triggered by a small inconvenience or difficulty and a little crowd building up outside. There has to be the possibility of an emergency.

Mr. Randall: May I again press the Minister on the practical details? He made it quite clear that it would be for the senior police officer or a certain police officer and the club to make the decision that an emergency existed and that action should be taken to open the gates. How does the Minister envisage that taking place? We know from other incidents, certainly from what happened at Hillsborough, that one needs to deal with these matters expeditiously. How does he imagine that happening on a


day on which there is a crush outside a turnstile which the police officer sees, when perhaps an officer of the club is not around? In practice, how would the decision be made?

Mr. Lloyd: With intelligence and forethought. These people have reached their positions in the police force because of their judgment, experience and ability to make decisions. The hon. Gentleman has followed the Bill and served on the Committee. I, alas, did not have that advantage, but it is clear to me that what is required from a club by the membership authority is that the club should have thought about what emergencies might occur, and how they should be met in the circumstances of the ground. All grounds differ, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, one needs to know not merely the situation at that point, but the layout of the ground and the possibilities of it, and the club and the local police should have thought out the possibilities in advance. I would rather rely on the good sense of police officers who have thought through such circumstances than on my efforts to give a recipe for each different ground from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am not the only one concerned about the absence of any attempt to define an emergency. If the club gets an emergency wrong or considers a certain set of circumstances to constitute an emergency when, on another view, it does not, as I understand the Minister that is a breach of the licence. That may be a serious matter. In those circumstances, is it not necessary for the Bill to contain some set of principles or criteria by which clubs can give forthought to the circumstances in which an emergency might arise? What concerns me, and I am sure others, is that clubs are being cast loose, with no set of principles against which to test their conduct.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have missed what I said earlier. We proceed in this matter not primarily through the Bill but through the licence. This makes it mandatory for the licence to go into more detail for each club on these matters. He is right to say that forethought should be given in these matters. They will be required in more detail through the licence, but the responsibility of the licensee—the club—and the police authority, is to think through in great detail what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested. I have sympathy with what he said, and the end result, but the Bill and the Dispatch Box are not the places to do it.

Mr. Ian McCartney: As a supporter of rugby league, I am also concerned about the lack of definition of emergency. The Minister is leaving the matter to be determined by courts if a dispute arises either because someone has decided to appeal against conviction or because a club has decided to appeal against the accusation of infringement of the conditions of their licence. Surely the priority at the time must not be whether there might be a breach of the conditions of the licence, and so an offence, but whether there is a safety risk. By excluding a definition, the Minister puts on police officers, and the chain of command, an unnecessary restriction, and intervenes in their determination of what should be safety matters. The courts will determine, after an accident,

whether a breach has taken place, and that is serious, given that the Bill was introduced to prevent accidents and serious disorder.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is not right. We are not leaving it to the courts to decide. We are requiring the licence to specify these matters as a mandatory requirement. The licence for different clubs will differ in different places. The right place to make these differences is through the licence, so that each will be tailormade for the club to which it applies. I accept the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he is wrong to think that these things will not be gone into more thoroughly. They are matters for the licence and for those police officers with this responsibility.

Mr. Randall: The Committee stage finished some time ago, so will the Minister refresh my memory on one point? Who is the ultimate authority on the definition of emergency? Will it be the police or the club? There could be a dispute between the police and the club: what would happen then? If there were a dispute, there could be risk to people. How would dispute be resolved?

Mr. Lloyd: The final authority will be the police. There must, however, be close co-operation between club officials and the police, and the nature of that co-operation will be laid down in the licence. The worry expressed in Committee, that there was no clear-cut responsibility, is one that we have taken on board, and it will be dealt with in the way in which I have described.

Mr. Peter Pike: The judgment that there is an emergency on a match day will be made as events take place and as they are seen to take place. When a few days have passed, the judgment of the moment may be called into question by those who have the benefit of hindsight. Those who are called upon to take a decision as the match is taking place will know that it could pose a threat to the club's licence.

Mr. Lloyd: If a club makes a decision in good faith and on good grounds and there is an argument afterwards that a slightly different decision should have been taken, the club's licence will not be at risk. We need the report of the inquiry and its recommendations before we can come to detailed conclusions on some of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me—his emphasis appeared to be somewhat different from that of some of his hon. Friends—that detailed decisions cannot be made at the Government Dispatch Box that relate to specific circumstances at a certain time at a particular ground. Such decisions must rest with the police and the club officials.

Mr. McCartney: Is there not a classic conflict of interest that could put a police officer in an invidious position? An officer may have to determine in a matter of moments whether an offence may or may not take place or whether there is a serious possibility that injury may ensue. That was the conflict of interest that existed at Sheffield and which has existed elsewhere. When the conflict arises, it is the spectator who suffers. We should not be inserting in the Bill further conflicts of interest that will be faced by the chain of command when it comes to determine safety priorities.

Mr. Lloyd: There is not the conflict of interest that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is not a question whether


there is the risk of injury or the risk that the law will be broken. If a police officer decides that there is an emergency, or the risk of one, and he recommends that advantage should be taken of the provisions that are set out in the amendment, there is no question of an offence being committed. That is with the exception of someone who has been disqualified who slips in with the crowd. Only he would be committing an offence.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps Lord Justice Taylor's conclusions so far on Hillsborough have been somewhat less than fortunate, in that they almost fully blame the police for the Hillsborough disaster? I refer to the conclusions that are set out in his interim report. That being so, this admirable and sensible amendment may be prejudiced. The Opposition take a different position from ours when it comes to support for the police—[Interruption.] That is in the spirit of what my hon. Friends and I have been hearing. Perhaps Lord Justice Taylor's conclusions so far have not assisted the passage of the amendment. His final conclusions, however, may mute the half-time conclusions, if I may so describe them, that attach criticism to the police at Hillsborough.

Mr. Lloyd: The police have an extremely difficult job. In the circumstances that we are considering, they have a central and crucial role. It is understandable that the first comments in Lord Justice Taylor's interim report were on the police, when we consider that their role is central. I understand that my hon. Friend is saying that the shortcomings and the difficulties that formed the background to the tragedy stemmed from a number of failures and were not confined to failures on the part of the police. Alas, the police were responsible for some failures. The licences will make the role of the police and of the club authorities much clearer.

Mr. Steve Norris: I ask my hon. Friend to comment on amendment No. 55. Whether or not the wording of the amendment is correct, it is clear that it is designed to determine who shall be the ultimate arbiter on what I shall loosely call the declaration of emergency. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have sought clarification, and while I entirely accept the spirit of the Government amendment, which I clearly welcome, will he explain why he is not minded to accept amendment No. 55?

Mr. John Greenway: I have not yet proposed amendment No. 55.

Mr. Norris: It would seem desirable to determine in advance whether the club authorities or the police have the ultimate say in declaring a state of emergency.

4 pm

Mr. Lloyd: I shall not address amendment No. 55 until my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has spoken to it. I answered earlier the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—although I have now forgotten what it was.

Mr. John Greenway: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) that it is not my intention that clubs should be authorised to declare an emergency, for that is for the police to do. That is the spirit of amendment No. 55, to which I shall speak in due course.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, for reminding me of the point with which I dealt earlier, when I said that the licence wil make it clear where responsibility lay. It will be primarily a matter for the police, but club officials will also have a degree of responsibility. If they see an emergency developing, they will obviously want to speak to the police in deciding what should be done. If there is not sufficient time to do that, the club officials will have the responsibility for taking a decision. It is intended that the licence will make it clear that that responsibility will be primarily with the police.
The Government amendments meet the concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and although there will be extensive debate on the new subsection introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, I hope that amendment No. 31 as it stands commends itself to the House.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I appreciate the Minister's difficulties in not having served on the Committee as a representative of the Home Office, but hon. Members on both sides of the Committee made the point that neither the Bill nor future legislation should create more offences of strict liability. Also stressed was the importance of providing a defence for those caught in situations that they could not control.
I am grateful that the Minister has moved on the point of strict liability, but his proposals will not meet the objections that have been raised. It goes to the ethos of the Bill that the Government believe that the creation of more criminal offences will solve the problem of hooliganism, which we do not believe. We do not accept that the drafting of a subsection to create a new offence will overcome the problems arid difficulties that have arisen in the past few years and which led to the Bill's introduction. Instead, the new subsection will criminalise football supporters and place them at risk, and it will make them more confused and concerned about the possibility of committing offences through no fault of their own. It will place a greater burden on both the police and the courts.
I am very concerned about the drafting of the final sentence in the amendment: I believe that it puts too much onus on identification evidence when it comes to court. Let us suppose that a spectator who is arrested tells the police officer that a certain person allowed him to enter the ground, and had lawful authority to do so. If, given the circumstances of the arrest, the officer feels that the time is not appropriate for him to take such information, the spectator will be arrested and detained, and will have to go to court. The defence provided will be a defence in the court, and it will be up to the spectator to prove that the person who let him in had lawful authority to do so.
It may be very difficult for the spectator to remember exactly who let him in, and to work out whether that person in fact had lawful authority. We shall get into difficulties with definitions and with identification evidence, and the drafting of that sentence will not help. It will impose a greater burden on the Crown prosecution service, which will have to consider whether to prosecute, and will have to examine the possibility of different kinds of identification evidence. I urge the Minister to look again at that definition, and to consider whether he is really satisfied that its wording will solve the problem.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not want us to create a new group of offences, and I


sympathise with his view. Surely, however, a person found in a ground without lawful authority—one who had not paid the admission charge, for instance—could be charged with a number of offences at this stage, while under the amendments, which I too welcome, a person will have a defence for being in a ground without having passed through the turnstiles in the normal way. Surely that cannot be to the disadvantage of the spectator.

Mr. Vaz: I accept that point. The problem is, however, that we are creating a new criminal offence. We have a duty to be clear: if we are not, we shall create more confusion and provide for identification difficulties. Spectators will point to people who have disappeared. After all, a spectator who has been allowed in and then arrested can hardly be expected to make a note of the name, address and designation of the person who let him in and who he claims had lawful authority.
I feel that the word "emergencies" should be defined. I know that it is difficult, and I note what the Minister says about well-trained police officers; the problem has, however, been identified already in the interim report by Lord Justice Taylor, who makes specific criticisms of the police. The Government and their legislation will not make more resources available for the training of police officers, and it is therefore wrong for the Minister to say that police officers will be given the proper training to make a definitive decision in difficult circumstances.
We are opening the clubs, the police and others to the possibility of judicial review—lengthy proceedings before higher courts, determining not just what constitutes an emergency but the whole question of statutory interpretation. If we are able to prevent that from happening, we should do so.
My final point concerns the examples given in Committee. I do not think that the amendment meets the position of someone walking outside a ground who has nothing to do with football and does not wish to be a spectator, but is driven into the ground with the rest of the crowd because of an emergency. He or she will generally be pushed forward. The Minister laughs, but that point was raised by Conservative Members. My example was slightly different. If a person is outside the ground where a large crowd has gathered, and a police officer, for example, decides to open the gates, that person, who is not a spectator and therefore is not protected by the defence in amendments Nos. 31, 32 or 34 which refer specifically to a spectator, may be forced by the general melee to go into the ground. As he has nothing to do with football and does not wish to enter the ground, he is not protected.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: It may help the hon. Gentleman to conclude his remarks to know that a passer-by who is swept into the ground by a crowd will have a complete defence. The only person who does not is someone who has been disqualified. Only such a person will not be covered by that defence.

Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to the Minister, but the amendment refers to "a spectator". Unless he can point me to another amendment relating to a person or a passer-by, in the case of a person who is not a spectator, whatever the Minister says now does not bind the courts. The courts will be looking for someone who is a spectator, so a defence is not provided.
To give a bizarre example, similar to the one I gave in Committee, if a helicopter crash lands on a football ground, a person who gets out of the helicopter will be committing an offence because that person is not a spectator. Unless the Minister can point the House to the defence of a passer-by that makes no reference to the word "spectator", that defence is not provided. No matter what the Minister tells the House, we are discussing civil liberties and lengthy court proceedings that will cost the taxpayer a great deal of money.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am not quite sure which sentence the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but he has mentioned the word "spectator". If a person is allowed into the premises as a spectator, that is the nature of the permission he was given. That does not mean that he was a spectator or that he intended to be a spectator, but that he was assumed to be a spectator and brought in. Therefore, he has a complete defence unless he has been disqualified from the membership scheme. I shall look at the wording again after the debate to satisfy myself that I am right to be satisfied that the Bill completely covers the eventualities that concern the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that it does.

Mr. Vaz: I shall not pursue the matter because my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is eager to make progress. It may seem a small point, but I can envisage such a situation arising and we should cover it. I suggest an amendment to the Minister's amendment changing the wording to "a spectator or any other person who enters the ground in those circumstances". I disagree with the Minister, as I believe that a person happily walking on a street on the afternoon of a football match is not a spectator. A spectator denotes a particular state of affairs in that he is going to watch a football match. Just because a person is allowed in by a police officer does not mean that he is a spectator.

Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 55——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move the amendment, but he is free to speak to it.

Mr. Greenway: Amendment No. 55 seeks to ensure that a serious public order problem could be avoided by the senior police offcer supervising the policing of a match being in no doubt of his powers to suspend the football membership scheme for the match he is policing, should circumstances so dictate.
The House has spent some time discussing that issue. I welcome the attempt by my hon. Friend the Minister to rectify the situation. I do not believe that my amendment in any way contradicts this amendment. In fact, they are complementary. Hon. Members are concerned with what constitutes an emergency and precisely who would take the decision to suspend the scheme at a football ground should circumstances so dictate.
The officer policing the match should be in no doubt of his powers to suspend the scheme in all or part of the ground, and club officials must be aware that such powers exist. Smaller clubs are already experiencing difficulty interpreting Lord Justice Taylor's interim recommendations on the policing of matches. I do not blame the police for that, but the police and clubs will have to work together. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that he


intends that the new licensing arrangements should make their duties and obligations absolutely clear, but the fact that there is concern and confusion about Lord Justice Taylor's interim report, especially about perimeter fences, shows the need to make the powers absolutely clear in the Bill.
4.15 pm
One of the main grounds of opposition of hon. Members who oppose the Bill is the practicality of the computer system and the problems that it could cause outside grounds. At this juncture, and in the light of the terrible Hillsborough tragedy, the safety of supporters must be paramount, which is why I tabled amendment No. 55. Concern has been expressed that the amendment might encourage hooligans to wreck the scheme, and we saw such an attempt during the recent trial scheme in Holland. I recognise that risk, but it will exist in any event, because people may try to wreck the scheme whether or not we make the powers of the police clear. That does not therefore obviate the need to ensure that the powers of the police are properly set out in the Bill.
Recommendation No. 29 of Lord Justice Taylor's interim report says:
The option to postpone kick-off should be in the discretion of the officer in command at the ground. Crowd safety should be the paramount consideration in deciding whether to exercise it.
It is incredible that that recommendation should have to be included in the report. If crowd safety is to be paramount, police officers should have the power to ensure that a match is postponed. That is a criticism not of the police but of the Football League and the Football Association. There is no doubt that they would welcome amendment No. 55 to ensure that the powers of the police are made absolutely clear.
We are told that the Bill is an enabling Bill. We do not yet know what the technical specification of the scheme, or the different schemes, will be. The scheme could embrace a number of different schemes at different levels of football, particularly in the light of Government amendment No. 1. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that it would be extremely difficult to define in the Bill "a serious emergency".
The amendment deals with the possibility of computer failure or failure of equipment. Such a failure need not be malicious. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) tabled amendment No. 56, which deals with the need for a prolonged test of the equipment, including throughout the winter. As we are passing this enabling Bill, it is right to consider every possible eventuality. Judging by the failures that one experiences daily in the performance of computer systems, whether they be cash-dispensing machines or ticket machines at Underground stations, failures will occur.
We must ensure that the senior officer at a football match has the power to suspend the scheme and, therefore, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will agree, none of the offences outlined in the Bill in relation to entering a football match would apply.
Even at small clubs the amendment could be essential. At a big match involving clubs such as Arsenal, a commander of the Metropolitan police may be in charge of police operations. However, at a small club such as York City—of which I am president—where crowds are

smaller, only a police inspector or chief inspector may be in charge and it is important that he knows what his powers are to suspend the scheme should equipment fail.
I recognise that the police have wide powers already, and it has been suggested to me privately that the amendment may not be necessary. However, I suggest that the amendment is appropriate in the light of what happened at Hillsborough. We know only too well that the police were criticised for treating the event as one of public order, when it was a serious problem of crowd safety. That must never happen again. As a former police officer, I deeply regret much of the criticism heaped upon the police, since in my judgment they were in an impossible position. I do not want to see that occur again.
There are five reasons why I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will support the amendment. The first reason is because of what happened at Hillsborought. Secondly, we do not yet know what Lord Justice Taylor's final recommendation will be with regard to membership schemes and the policing of football matches. Thirdly, this is an enabling Bill. Fourthly, there is a need for clarity, and finally, there is an overwhelming need to put safety first. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The comments of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) have a great deal of force and merit. He has set out to provide, in the sometimes frantic circumstances that might attend the 10, 15 or 20 minutes before the kick-off at a major football match, a degree of certainty and a clarity of responsibility. That should commend itself, even at this stage, to those on the Treasury Bench. That absence of clarity detracts substantially from the advantage that might have been conferred on the Bill by the insertion in clause 9 of the defence of what might be called, for shorthand purposes, the defence of emergency.
The House will appreciate that clause 9(2), to which amendment No. 33 appplies, contains two defences. The onus of establishing these defences will rest upon the person charged with the criminal offence. The additional defence that it seeks to insert is
that the spectators were admitted in an emergency
That will still need to be proved, by the person against whom criminal proceedings are to be taken. If that defence is to have any substance or be of any real value, it is only right and proper that the word "emergency ", which is such a substantial part of that defence, should be further defined.
I accept that that may be difficult. However, it is not all that difficult for a draftsman to arrive at a form of words that would give the person charged with a criminal offence some clearer indication of the factors upon which he or she might be able reply. For example, an "emergency" might be defined as circumstances in which there was a threat to public order and safety or injury to persons or property.
Those factors are clearly defined and would make clear to a person seeking to rely on the defence precisely what the ambit of that defence was. They would also give the courts, which will be responsible for derterming whether a criminal offence has occurred, a set of criteria by which to measure the defence.

Mr. Richard Holt: The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to define "emergency". Amendment No. 55 refers to a "serious emergency". Is there a legal difference between the two?

Mr. Campbell: For the moment, I am concerned with Government amendment No. 31, which provides for an additional defence under clause 9. Courts do not have any difficulty in determining what application is to be given to the word "serious". They may find difficulty in dealing with the use of the word "emergency" without any further definition of the criteria by which an emergency is to be established.
For that reason, I hope that Ministers will consider—as I think they are still technically able to do before the Bill finally receives Royal Assent—whether a definition of "emergency" can reasonably be inserted in the Bill to provide the clarity and precision that all of us believe such legislation should have.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I wish first to declare my interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Clarification of the word "emergency" is necessary, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for saying that he will consider this matter again before the Bill finally receives Royal Assent.
We all know that the police have the primary responsibility for deciding what is and what is not an emergency. That is well established. The police must make such decisions every hour of the day and every day of the week. Given everything that has happened during the past year, especially the Hillsborough stadium disaster, the utmost clarity is essential if the police are to be able to do their job properly and have the support of the public, especially those who attend football matches regularly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has put his finger on an important point in amendment No. 55, to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will give serious consideration. My only doubt is whether the amendment will encourage those elements which we know exist to press all the more strongly in trying to wreck the scheme from its inception. I should like to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. I want to be sure that the amendment does not contain anything that will have the opposite effect to the one intended. All hon. Members recognise that, unfortunately, there are hooligans in our community who are determined to wreck any attempt to impose this or any other scheme that is designed to avoid the terrible problems that we had at Hillsborough. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that specific point.

Mr. Tony Banks: Amendment No. 55 seems very reasonable and it was described persuasively and reasonably by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I hope that the Minister will accept it. Do not the police already have such powers to act in an emergency? Hon. Members who ask for definitions of "emergency" ask for a particularly obscure form of definition. Naturally, "emergency" must cover any foreseeable or unforeseeable circumstances. A definition of "emergency" is precisely that—emergency. One does not define it further. I should have thought that in those circumstances the police would probably have such powers anyway to set aside the scheme.
This is the real point. As we all know, the one thing about which we can be sure with a computer system is that it will break down sooner rather than later, usually sooner. There was that embarrassing experience for the

Government, including the Minister for Sport, when the computer system broke down at the Conservative party conference, and there were difficulties in getting in. Why on earth anyone wanted to get into a Conservative party conference I do not know, given that most of the violence was already occurring inside. I do not believe that the breakdown was a major problem, but it showed that computer systems can break down, as undoubtedly they will under the scheme. If the police do not already have the necessary powers, clearly they must be given them in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister can clear up this matter.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I especially welcome the Government amendments on the opportunities to evade conviction because of a good and sound defence. I especially commend to the House the Government amendments that relate to the responsibilities of club officials. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pay tribute to the club officials from whom so much will be expected through the scheme.
Over the past 20 years, club secretaries and chairmen have had to cope with the problems of crowd control, violence and disorder. Some of them, especially at small clubs such as Bury, my own local club, were concerned that the Bill would add to their responsibilities and might lead to the problem that if there was an emergency and they let people into the ground, they might face the penalty of being fined or even going to prison. My own chairman, Terry Robinson, was especially worried about that. I reassured him that I was sure that something would be done to relieve his anxiety, and I believe that the Government amendments do that.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pay tribute to the work of the various officials who have already done much for football and who will be expected to do more? Will he confirm that these proposals should remove some of the anxiety that the officials felt about what would happen if emergencies arose outside the ground?

Mr. Roger Gale: I support amendment No. 55 and endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in his opening remarks. My opposition to the football membership scheme is on record in the House and outside. I do not believe that the scheme will work, and I believe that such money as is spent on it would be infinitely better spent on introducing all-seater stadiums and better facilities for spectators.
Having said that, I am wholly persuaded that it would be nonsense for us to create a situation whereby the Hillsborough inquiry might recommend a scheme—I recognise that I am not the fount of all knowledge on the subject, any more than anyone else is—and we did not have the legislation in place to cater for such a scheme. For that reason alone, I shall support the Bill, although I have also made it plain that, if the Hillsborough inquiry does not recommend the introduction of a scheme, I shall not suport its introduction. I hope that, in the light of my reasonable attitude, my hon. Friend the Minister will take an equally reasonable approach to amendment No. 55.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to an incident at Blackpool, when there was a small computer failure as a result of which a large but extremely orderly body of people were required to wait on the pavement. I shudder to think what might have


happened had such a scheme been introduced earlier and been in place at Brighton, for example, where the crowd would not have been quite so orderly, or were 40,000 or 50,000 football spectators to be kept out of a ground as a result of a computer failure and, therefore, of a membership scheme.
It is clear that the police must have the necessary powers to act swiftly and, if necessary, an individual police officer must have such powers in what he or she believes to be an emergency. It would be quite appalling, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will accept, if a major emergency were to turn into a disaster because a single police officer was unaware that he or she had the power to fling open the gates if necessary.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend. Does he agree that there are many instances in which policemen on duty at football matches do not have personal radios? Usually, there are only enough available for a particular shift, and if policemen come on duty as a result of rest day working or overtime, they are in a football crowd without any personal radio and it is impossible for them to be in contact with their senior officers.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. That is why I laid some emphasis on my belief that the individual man or woman on duty should have the power—and know that he or she has the power—to make an instant decision, if that becomes necessary. That is the spirit in which amendment No. 55 has been tabled, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise it as such. I hope that he will feel able to accept the amendment.

Mr. Jim Lester: I want to speak briefly to amendment No. 55, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) because I suffered particularly as a result of the failure of the computer scheme at the Conservative party conference. My wife was excluded and I had to stand outside with her for two hours in the rain while we went through the whole procedure for the third time to try to get her admitted. I accept, therefore, that computer failures can happen and that they can have very serious consequences.
I do not think that we should say that we cannot accept an amendment that makes sense because those who might seek to break the scheme might take advantage of it. I hardly think that those who would anyway seek to break the scheme will claim in their defence that amendment No. 55 allowed them to take on the whole scheme. Some football supporters will regard the scheme as a great challenge, as the Dutch fans did, but our job is to pass good, sound and clear legislation under which everyone knows where they stand. People's safety should be the paramount consideration. I support the amendment whole-heartedly because it clearly defines under what conditions and by whom the scheme may be declared temporarily suspended in the interest of saving lives.

Mr. James Couchman: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Like him, I have a lower division club in my constituency and policing at its ground is under the supervision of a comparatively junior officer. It will be essential that the person in charge of the police on match days has full knowledge of what he or she may do, in terms

of allowing fans in, to bypass the equipment that has broken down. I beseech my hon. Friend the Minister to take that into account in his final thoughts on the Bill.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Many points have been made, but I may succeed in being brief nevertheless because some of them have been fairly similar.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said that he did not like the creation of what he saw as a new offence. I would say to the hon. Gentleman—at least, I would say to the hon. Gentleman if he were still in his place—that the amendment would not create a new offence but provide a new defence which has been generally welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman was worried that an individual might be prosecuted and say, "Well, I am sure that there was an emergency because somebody told me so but I do not remember the name of the person who declared the emergency." The evidence that the supporter was inside the ground unlawfully will be given either by the club or by the police, one of which will have declared the emergency. The inability to identify the person who has declared the emergency should not, therefore, prove to be a problem.
I have much sympathy with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), and I understand what his worries are. He wondered who would have the primary responsibility in such cases, and wanted that to be set out clearly. As I said earlier, the primary responsibility for the declaration of an emergency will belong to the police, although there will also be a responsibility belonging to the club as the licence holder. One would expect clubs and police to negotiate.
As I have said before, these matters will be spelt out much more fully in the licence, and it is right that they should be spelt out there, rather than in the Bill, because different circumstances pertain for different clubs and different grounds and each licence should take those circumstances into account. Most important of all, before the licence is finally approved there should be consultation, not merely with the club officials but with the police and other responsible people so that there is no doubt whatever regarding both their general responsibilities and their responsibilities by reference to the particular ground and the particular club.
The reason that I cannot accept the amendment, although I am sympathetic to it, is that it would enable police officers—and, indeed, by implication, club officials—to suspend the provisions of the Act.
We do not want the new Act to be suspended in an emergency. We want the police and club officials to be able to take the right decisions without the fear of innocent people discovering that they have transgressed the law. If I accept amendment No. 55, no penalties could be applied to anyone for unauthorised attendance on that clay because the Act would not have force for that particular match. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale would not want that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was understandably worried about a difficulty that fell short of an emergency in which there might be risk of injury. He referred to the possibility of a computer breakdown. If a breakdown led to huge queues which caused a police officer to believe that the situation might become an emergency, the provisions of amendment No. 31 would


come into effect. However, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has something else in mind in his amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale may have in mind a situation in which the computer system breaks down. Instead of an emergency developing, the queue may simply get longer and snake back away from the ground. At such a typical football ground, there may be no sign of disorder. The fans might be good humoured and patient, but there is a huge problem of actually reading each individual membership card. Such a situation would have to be considered within the terms of the licence. Therefore, alternative arrangements could be brought into force, short of suspending the Act.
People should be let into the ground, but their cards will not be passed through the computer. However, each individual must show his membership card with his ticket. If he does not, he will not be allowed in. It will not be possible to read the details on each card, but that would be the best effort that the club could make in such circumstances and the law would not be breached. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) were worried about a situation which fell short of an emergency. If such a situation arises, it can be taken care of in the normal flexible course of applying the rules of a particular licence.

Mr. Denis Howell: This is an extremely important matter. Some of our most important football grounds have 100 or more turnstiles. If a computer breaks down, it is not simply a question of one or two local police officers deciding what to do. If the computer breaks down, 100 turnstiles may be affected. If a turnstile breaks, that is a more local problem.
The sense of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is overwhelming. There are still a few more days before the Bill goes to another place. I hope that the Minister will accept the rationale of this argument. We cannot allow a situation to develop 10 minutes before kick-off at say, Arsenal, Tottenham, Liverpool or Manchester United when the computer system has broken down and then discussions must take place to allow a pre-arranged system between the clubs and the police to come into operation. That is not right, and I beg the Minister to think again.

Mr. Lloyd: I believe that it is right that the clubs should consider what might happen if there are mechanical or other breakdowns. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) referred to a turnstile becoming stuck: clubs must plan for such eventualities to deal with them when they occur. I understand the particular concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. His concern is genuine, but we do not require a special amendment—or amendment No. 55 which he has tabled—to meet his concern.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: A little earlier the Minister said that it would be an offence to be in a ground without holding a membership card. I thought that we had decided in Committee that it would not be an offence to be inside a ground without a card. It will be an offence to be inside a ground if someone is not

a member of the scheme. It will not be an offence to be inside the ground without a membership card as such. Will the Minister confirm that? A little earlier I thought that he said that people must have their cards to be inside grounds.

Mr. Lloyd: If there was a breakdown and a member of the scheme did not have his card, he could expect to be refused admission to the ground. If he was in the ground having left his card behind—I wait to be corrected by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport who has guided the Bill through Committee—I imagine that that person would not have committed an offence if he could show that he was a member of the scheme. I was referring to whether he would be allowed into the ground. Without a card, he would very properly be turned away because he could not demonstrate that he was a member.

Mr. John Greenway: I accept my hon. Friend's point with regard to the licensing arrangements. I am sure that he understands that we must have primary legislation in the Bill. We cannot have separate arrangements for different police forces in relation to different football grounds.
If there is a mechanical failure at a turnstile and the machines do not read the computer cards, it need not necessarily follow that all the other turnstiles have broken down. The problem may affect only a block of turnstiles at a particular ground. Certain police officers will be presented with a difficult situation. Do they allow the fans to pass through the turnstiles? There is no question here of a suggestion that the gates should be opened, because the club will still want to collect the admission fees. However, membership cards will not be checked if there is a breakdown.
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend that the scheme could be operated so that if someone enters a ground, but is not a scheme member, he would still be guilty of an offence even though scheme cards had not been processed. My point is that club officials need to know that the police have the power to take whatever action they think is fit with regard to crowd safety. My hon. Friend the Minister should make that abundantly clear. If the position is not clear, it should be made clear in the Bill.

Mr. Lloyd: I have made it abundantly clear that it is mandatory in the Bill that licences should cover those eventualities. However, I disagree with my hon. Friend in that I believe that there must be different arrangements according to different grounds and different circumstances. That would be reflected in the licence and that is why we will operate the detail through the licence, not on the face of the Bill.

Mr. John Greenway: What about police powers?

Mr. Lloyd: The police powers are such as to allow them to take the appropriate decisions, particularly in emergencies. If the computer at one entrance point breaks down, that is not an emergency in that sense. It is a difficulty which each club will have considered and will have means to overcome. The most obvious way to do that is to have a sight check of membership cards of people entering that gate. Of course the cards will not be machine-read in detail, but at least such a check would show the almost certain probability that the people


entering the ground were members in good standing. It would be perfectly proper for the club to do that and it would be something of which the police would approve—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Small Heath may chunter, but as he is a man of common sense, that is the kind of thing that he would do if he was in charge.

Mr. Denis Howell: That is utter nonsense. A computer could break down and people might be entering a ground at a rate of more than 1,000 a minute through 100 turnstiles. Even if people hold their cards up, it will be impossible to inspect them. The Government should not try to rest on that ludicrous hypothetical situation.

Mr. Lloyd: The card readers may be independent of each other. If one breaks down there is no likelihood that the others will break down as well. Although I was not present in Committee, I imagine that the right hon. Member for Small Heath and his colleagues claimed that reading cards would hold spectators up. The cards will not be machine-read but will merely be looked at in the same way as a ticket is looked at. All the Opposition's arguments suggest that this arrangement will work particularly well in the event of a breakdown.

Mr. David Evans: I shall try to help my hon. Friend. At Luton Town football club, if the computerised system breaks down, we have a visual check, and it works very well. At Manchester United, half the ground is entered by people carrying membership cards. Its turnstiles have broken down, and once again a visual check has proved to be quite adequate and there have been no problems. Entry has not been delayed at all.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows what he is talking about. He confirms that there is no particular problem, although I understand concern being raised about this point.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) was worried about some of the points that I have already covered. He was concerned about somebody being prosecuted for being unauthorised, possibly because he had not got a membership card—I suspect, not one who had been disqualified—and having to prove that there was an emergency. He would not need to prove that there was an emergency. It would be for the police or club authorities to say that there was an emergency. That would be a complete defence for that individual, even though it might be arguable whether the police or the club had correctly defined an emergency. Those about whom the hon. and learned Member was worried do not have a problem.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I was particularly concerned about the position of a responsible person under clause 9(2), which sets out two defences. The purpose of one amendment is to add an additional defence—the emergency defence. The onus of proof of that defence will rest on the person attempting to establish it, who will be the person who was accused of a contravention of this part of the Bill. On that basis, is he entitled to know in advance what criteria he can plead in support of that defence?

Mr. Lloyd: He will see very much more clearly from the licence under which he operates. That worry is more theoretical than practical. Who is to produce the evidence to prosecute such a person? It will be either the police or a club official. As they will be most concerned and will

consult each other, I suspect that they will arrive at the conclusion that there is an emergency and that they should act. I understand also that the court would act on the basis of what it was reasonable for someone to assume. Because of all the problems that it creates, it is very unlikely that either the police or a club official will unreasonably declare an emergency. I see the hon. and learned Member's theoretical point, but I do not think that it is practical.
I understand the special concern and interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I agree that clarity is necessary. I hope that clarity will exist in the licences, because there will need to be consultation with the police before licences are finally issued. The police input will be real and extensive before licences are in effect. The police will work under arrangements that they have helped to make.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made some sensible observations. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is often sensible, but usually not when he is commenting on things that I have said. I am particularly grateful to him. He is quite right that it would be a mistake to try to define "emergency" too closely. All sorts of unexpected situations can arise, and it would be a pity if they were excluded by the tightness of the language that we decide to adopt in the Bill for the sake of clarity.
I can satisfy the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) that we should acknowledge the role that officials will play. We understand that they have performed and will continue to perform an onerous job under this legislation. I hope that, in some respects, their job will be easier because the licences will clarify their role and that of the police. Nevertheless, it is an onerous role and, in exercising it in good faith, they will run no risk of prosecution. If they do their job as well as they can and seek to take the decisions that seem to them to be right at the time, they will have nothing to fear.
I am glad to have the conditional support of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I hope that, at the end of my remarks on this set of amendments, I will have his whole-hearted support. The police need to know what their powers are. Again, that is part of the purpose of the licence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Lester) raised certain points. I am sorry about his wife not getting into the conference. I am sure that she had a valid ticket, that she did not riot outside or complain, and that the turnstiles were able to be sidestepped, as would happen in any well conducted football ground.
I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). With that, I again commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Randall: I compliment the Minister on giving such full replies to many of the issues that have been raised today. However, his reasons for rejecting amendment No. 55 were quite inadequate and unconvincing. He said that it was the right decision because it would result in people not transgressing the law and so on. All hon. Members are concerned about the safety of people. That is the paramount argument in the debate. Amendment No. 55 states that we should suspend this complex system.
We have a complex piece of legislation and complex licences which will all be different throughout the country because all football grounds are different. Because safety is paramount, we must make sure that the licences and the legislation in no way constrain the police to make the right


decision in the event of unforeseen emergencies. The Minister has said that he would prefer to keep the system in place and to have the decision-making process through this complex licence arrangement, whereas the Opposition and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) believe that, in terms of decision making and the safety of football fans, it would be better to suspend this complex system. The Minister has failed to convince the Opposition and other hon. Members.
We are talking about emergencies. We do not know what they are, and it is impossible for us to define them. Because one cannot foresee all emergencies and what they entail, and if we put people's safety before everything else, it must make absolute sense to suspend the system. The amendment is convincing, and I am disappointed at the Minister's failure to make a good case for not accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

THE FOOTBALL MEMBERSHIP AUTHORITY

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 5, at beginning insert—
'Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this is will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 11, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall not designate any body corporate as the Football Membership Authority unless he is satisfied that its articles of association make provision securing—
(a) that its Board shall comprise a Chairman and six other members, of whom the Chairman and four of the other members are persons approved by the Secretary of State before their election as Chairman or as member, as the case may be, and the remaining two members are persons nominated by the Secretary of State, and
(b) that the Chairman shall be a person who has no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as Chairman;
and all the members of the Board shall hold office in accordance with the articles of association of the body corporate.
(3B) The Secretary of State may withdraw the designation of a body corporate as the Football Membership Authority if he ceases to be satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (3A) above.

Amendment (a) to the Government amendment, in paragraph (a), leave out 'six' and insert 'eight'.

Amendment (b) to the Government amendment, in paragraph (a), after first "Secretary of State", insert
'being members of the Football Association and the Football League.'.

Amendment (c) to the Government amendment in paragraph (a), after second "Secretary of State", add
'being one representative each of the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Football Supporters Association or, if they have ceased to function, their equivalents.'.

Government amendment No. 4.

Mr. Moynihan: The Government amendments relate to the composition of the Football Membership Authority. They follow an undertaking which I gave in Commitee to consider an amendment to make provision on the face of the Bill concerning the chairmanship and membership of

the authority. I said also that I would consider an amendment to involve the supporters organisations in the running of the FMA. That is the subject of a later Government amendment, but I will refer briefly to it in my comments on these amendments.
I promised to consider an amendment about the composition of the authority in response to Opposition amendments on the subject tabled in this House and in another place.
The Bill, as introduced, said nothing on the subject, because the Football Membership Authority will be a private company, not a quango like the National Rivers Authority or the Football Licensing Authority. We should not, therefore, be in the business of spelling out detailed rules on how the FMA will operate, as we have to do for the Football Licensing Authority. I recognise, however, that there is a strong desire to see certain aspects of the chairmanship and membership spelt out in the Bill.
5 pm
The Government amendments require that the authority shall have a chairman who is independent of any financial interest or any other area of potential conflict with football and that it shall have six other members. Two of those six members will be nominated by the Secretary of State. The remaining four will be approved by him and will, we hope, be agreed with the football authorities if they take on the responsibility for the FMA. The Chairman will also be approved by the Secretary of State, in agreement, we expect, with the football authorities.
The amendment does not refer to the football authorities by name because we must take account of the possibility—a very small one, I hope—that they may decide not to take on the FMA. I cannot, therefore, accept the Opposition amendment to that effect. At the same time, the working party set up by the Football Association and the Football League to prepare for the FMA has been hard at work since the Bill's Committee stage, and we envisage that together they will set up the company which the Secretary of State will designate as the FMA.
The Government amendments do not refer specifically to members appointed to represent the interests of football supporters. I do not rule out that possibility, although the public comments of the chairman of the Football Supporters Association appear to suggest that his personal attitude to the FMA would be a negative one. It is hard to believe that he would want to be associated with the FMA.
I have always accepted, however, that there is a case for football supporters to be mush more closely involved in running the game. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 8, which would require the FMA to give the representatives of football supporters an opportunity to make representations about the content of the football membership scheme. I understand that the football authorities' working party on the scheme has already held one meeting with both the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Football Supporters Association.
The Bill has already begun to have desirable effects. Our amendment will ensure that they keep the consultation process going. I commend the approach that the Government amendments take on the subject rather than that of the Opposition in enlarging the number of members and then seeking to spell out who should appoint the members of the authority. Of course football must be fully represented on the authority. It remains our hope and


expectation that the football authorities will form the company that will be designated as the FMA, but if they should decline the offer made to them for first refusal to establish the FMA, or fail to live up to the conditions indicated in that letter, or if something should go wrong with their appointment as the FMA, the legislation must allow for the possibility that someone else, or other nominees from football, will and can be appointed.

Mr. John Carlisle: Have official moves been made inviting the Football Association and the Football League to be members of the FMA? If such an approach has already been made, what has been their response?

Mr. Moynihan: I am not aware that any of the organisations representing football supporters have made formal representations to be appointed to the FMA. A number of people within the world of football—not least those identified by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in his amendment which was not accepted for debate—might like to be considered for representation. Some of them have said informally that they would like to be considered. Suffice it to say that we shall consider carefully the nominations. I hope that the football authorities will carefully consider the nominees who might be put to them as part of their team—be it from the supporters' organisations, or representatives of the Professional Footballers Association and other bodies.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister has referred throughout his speech to the "chairman" of the FMA, and that word appears in the amendment No. 3. Is that normal Government use of sexist language, or will the Minister contemplate the possibility of a woman being the chair of the FMA?

Mr. Moynihan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is traditional language which has been employed by his party as well as ours in legislation of this kind. In no way does it rule out the possibility of a woman being appointed as chairman of the FMA.
The third amendment is a drafting amendment. It relates to the possibility that a body established as the FMA might give up the job. In that event, the technically correct phrase is that its functions would be divested rather than withdrawn, as the Bill says at present. The amendment will put that drafting right.
The effect of the Government amendments is to spell out that the chairman of the FMA, be it a man or a woman, must be independent and that there will be six other members—two of them appointed by the Secretary of State and the other four approved by him, or her. If all goes well, that will also be agreed with the football authorities. The amendments carry forward the undertaking that I gave the Committee, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Denis Howell: Although the Minister tabled the amendment, if falls far short of what we were led to believe the Government intended to do. The Minister has fallen into the trap of believing that football should be represented by the two governing bodies and by no one else. As we know from the petition that was recently presented to the House, over 500,000 people watch football on any Saturday afternoon, but the Minister is

telling us in these amendments that they have no right of membership of the Football Membership Authority. That is monstrous.
The Minister says that a later amendment gives to the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs the right to make representations. How very kind of him. What a big deal that is.
The Chester committee of inquiry into football reported 30 years ago and recommended that all those with an interest in football should have a place on the Football Association's governing body, and that that should include the Professional Footballers Association as well as the supporters. Thirty years later that recommendation has not been accepted. That does not give us confidence that the Football Association and the Football League will pay any attention to the inclusion of representatives of supporters and players. Parliament ought to insist that, as of right, they should be represented. When the social contract that is to be enshrined in European legislation is universally applied, the Professional Footballers Association will have the right of membership of the FMA. However, we hope to have that provision in place before then.
We do not seek in our amendments to displace the chairman and the six other members. We wish to increase that number. I have to confess that we have made an error. Instead of increasing that number to eight, we ought to have increased it to nine. When the Bill reaches another place later in the week, I hope that our omission will be rectified. Apart from the Football Association and the Football League, three organisations are entitled to membership of what the Minister says will be a limited company. Therefore, the House ought to say exactly who should be represented on that limited company. The two football organisations that I have mentioned and the Professional Footballers Association ought to be represented, and that brings the number to nine. The Minister and the House of Lords will have the opportunity to consider that later.
We have thought it right to include the Football Association and the Football League by name. The Minister just gave an extraordinary reason for not agreeing to that: he said that they might decide not to co-operate, so he might have to impose some scheme on them and appoint people to run it. Even if the league and the FA say that they will not co-operate, I cannot believe that it would not be possible to obtain the names of people from those organisations to meet the terms of our amendment. The only circumstances in which the FA or the league would not co-operate would be those in which a scheme was forced on them and football was not represented as the majority——

Mr. John Carlisle: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if the FA and the league express, as they have, their opposition to the scheme and the opinion that they will not join the FMA if invited to do so, his idea is that they should still be invited on to the committee? We all know of the right hon. Gentleman's close relationship with the Football League and the FA, so perhaps he can inform us of what would happen. Is he saying that those bodies will refuse to serve on the FMA because of their opposition?

Mr. Howell: I am saying no such thing: that is what the Minister is saying. The Minister cannot accept our amendment, in which we name the Football Association and the Football League, on the ground that they might not agree to serve. I say that there are members of those organisations—one is sitting here now: the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)—who could fall into the necessary category.
Of course the FA and the league are opposed to the scheme, because they know that it will not work, that it will cause mayhem at the turnstiles and that it is an affront to civil liberties which will cause a considerable fall-off in gates among casual visitors, particularly at Christmas and during the holidays. That is why they and we oppose this ridiculous scheme. However, they are democrats and, I am sorry to say, most of them support the Government, although their support is dwindling. If the House puts the Bill on the statute book, members of these organisations will do their best, as law-abiding citizens, to make it work. I think that they would be better advised to have nothing to do with it, because it will not work, and we should not make the representatives of football accept a lawful responsibility, through a limited company, to operate a scheme which they know will not work—but that is their decision, and I understand that they want to participate in the scheme as best they can.
The FA and the league's position is that, although the scheme is a bad job, it should at least be run by football people who understand the difficulties and who will do their best to make it work. I respect that argument, although I am somewhat sceptical about it.
The Minister gave us a clear undertaking that the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs would be able to serve on the scheme, so why has he gone back on that? I do not know why we need an amendment to give the right to make submissions—that is meaningless flannel. Anyone can made representations, but these bodies should be participating——

Mr. David Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that football club supporters' views are not co-ordinated and that the bodies that he is talking about have only a minuscule representation of football supporters? The vast majority of the 500,000 people that he is discussing are not represented by these two football bodies.

Mr. Howell: That was an extraordinary intervention, given that on Friday I presented a petition signed by 500,000 people, every one of whose signatures was gathered by these two organisations. Before this debate started, the Professional Footballers Association presented me with a petition against the Bill which I will be sending to the Prime Minister and which every professional footballer in the country has signed. These people should have a place: every footballer to be found on the fields of England opposes the Bill, but they, too, are disregarded and are not even to have a place in the working of the the scheme——

Miss Kate Hoey: Would my right hon. Friend wish to point out that not only are these bodies well organised but the Football Supporters Association is so

well thought of that Lord Justice Taylor insisted that it be given legal advice and be able to give evidence to his inquiry?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful——

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Howell: No, I shall deal with my hon. Friend's intervention. If I do not deal with it satisfactorily I shall give way with my customary courtesy—I seem to spend more time at Luton Town than at Villa Park these days, which is sad.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Lord Justice Taylor said that the FSA should have the right of audience and of counsel paid for from central funds—expensively—and I understand that he continues to seek its advice on points that have arisen during his deliberations. Both these organisations, as anyone who has had anything to do with them will know, are most responsible. I declare an interest in that I am the patron of the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, which may well be even more responsible than I am, because it does not have to bother with political points.
These organisations clearly have more information than the Minister has. I spent the weekend in the company of one of their officials who gave me a blow-by-blow account of what went on in Poland at the last international match—an area with which we shall deal in part II of the Bill. The Minister may think this amusing—perhaps he can tell us more later. Perhaps he can confirm that the National Front and other organisations behaved contemptibly during the England-Poland match—they went to Auschwitz and behaved in a way that no hon. Member would condone. We tried to raise this matter, but the Chair did not accept our amendment, so I can mention it only in passing.
The information on which I based the amendment came from these organisations, which took careful note of what happened—as did the Mail on Sunday reporter who, much to his credit, wrote a vivid report. People of this sort who travel with football supporters can gather this kind of information and know what is actually happening. Most of the directors of the league and the FA, like many of us, have not stood on the terraces for a long time, much less travelled with the England football supporters to see the antics of these disruptive people. The case for having them represented is so that they can say in the councils of the Football Membership Authority, "That is what is happening, gentlemen, and we must direct our attention to it." Having an audience is no substitute for having a responsibility for the government of the scheme.

Mr. John Carlisle: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the advice that he has supplied about the Football Supporters Association. Can he help us by giving some information about the representation and membership of that association? We are confused because the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends have put down an amendment which talks about
the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Football Supporters Association or, if they have ceased to function, their equivalents.
The right hon. Gentleman has a deep knowledge of the workings of the Football Supporters Association. Can he tell us how many people it represents? There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman saying that he presented a


petition with 430,000 signatures gathered by the FSA. How many members does the FSA have, whom does it represent and what other organisations of equivalent status which are within what we might call the supporters league, could say to the right hon. Gentleman that it also wants to be represented on the FMA?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman has not sought to amend my proposals and that suggests that he does not know of any other organisation. The Football Supporters Association is like many Conservative organisations: it does not have members, it has supporters.

Mr. David Evans: How many?

Mr. Howell: I do not know. Nobody knows. If there is no membership how the devil can one say what the membership is? It is sufficient for our purposes to know that it exists, speaks for at least 500,000 people and has therefore a legitimate voice. That voice should be heard and the FSA should be a member of the FMA. The National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs is easier to define because as far as I know most of the Football League supporters clubs are members of it. There may be one or two that are not.

Mr. David Evans: Three months ago the total membership for both supporters associations was not more than 15,000 people. The right hon. Gentleman talks about 500,000.

Mr. Howells: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got that figure. All I can tell him is that every supporters club known to me is in membership of the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs.
Even if Conservative Members are right and I am wrong about the definition of a body that represents supporters, it would be totally wrong to say that supporters should have no right of membership of the FMA. Equally, it is quite wrong to say that professional footballers, almost 100 per cent. of whom are members of the Professional Footballers Association and who signed a petition today, should not have the right to be on this body. Their livelihood is at stake and they should have a right of audience.
Our amendments should be accepted by the Government. If they do not accept them it will be a serious affront to all the people who pay to keep professional football going and to all the people who play it.

Mr. Lester: I shall be brief, because we had a long debate in Committee about the position of football supporters. Surely the debate is not a nice legal argument about membership and whom an organisation represents. The scheme is complicated and difficult enough and one cannot imagine it having any chance of operating unless it has the good will of the Football League, the Football Association and the football supporters' clubs, whether they are federated from individual clubs or members of the national scheme.
The real point is that whoever is appointed as a result of the Government amendment will not have a cat in hell's chance of making the scheme work if they do not have an interest in working with the grain of football. That is the point that we seek to make. If the Government want to have any chance of even making the scheme tick over, never mind work in terms of excluding the 1,800 people

who are the subject of exclusion orders, they must have the good will of the Football Association, the Football League and the football supporters' clubs.
There is no point in knocking or criticising those bodies, because they run the industry and have the greatest involvement in and knowledge of it. They are most anxious to get rid of the hooligans—a point which is constantly forgotten—because they would lose more from hooligans than anybody. The central point that the Minister must consider is how to keep moving along while retaining the good will of those involved in the industry. Without that good will, whom ever he appoints to the body will have no opportunity to make the scheme work.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I was astounded by the Minister's reason for ignoring the Football Supporters Association and the other body representing football supporters. The only reason he gave was that one representative of the Football Supporters Association had seemed to signify that he would not be interested in being a member of the Football Membership Authority. The Minister has admitted that he has never had discussions with the Football League or the Football Association about whether they would be willing to be members of the FMA.

Mr. Moynihan: I am more than willing to assist the hon. Gentleman on that matter. He is wrong. The Football Association and the Football League have indicated their willingness to serve on the FMA. Indeed, they have gone further and have asked for first refusal at the time of the Secretary of State's appointments to the FMA. They have been co-operating for months on a working party to establish detailed proposals for a national membership scheme. From over 100 potential suppliers they have produced a short list of six and are working on the terms of reference to go out to tender. They have been keenly working on the details, but, of course, they have made their overall position clear about the national membership scheme. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was right to say that despite the opposition in principle, the Football Association and the Football League consist of honourable men who will work within the law to ensure that the scheme works effectively, as I am sure it will, as soon as possible.

Mr. Wareing: The essential point is that, from the outset, the Football Association and the Football League, like the Football Supporters Association, have been completely opposed to the scheme. Only one club in the country is in accord with the Minister's desires and the Prime Minister's maniacal desires. That is Luton Town football club, whose attendances are falling and whose chairman was the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans).
There is something about what the Minister said in the debate that suggests some sort of attempt to cover up in future anything that happens in football by saying that the Football Membership Authority is a plc and is independent of the Government. At the same time, the Secretary of State will have the right to determine that, if the FMA does not live up to the desires of the Prime Minister, it can be disbanded and a new FMA set up. What plc in the country can be abolished by the Secretary of State and a new one brought into existence?
The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisile) made all sorts of attacks on the Football Supporters


Association. He asked how many members it has and how many people it represents. The real reason for his questions is that he does not want any football supporters represented on the FMA. No Conservative Member would ask the same questions about any other quango—and, plc or not, the FMA will be a quango. No Conservative Member asked such questions about the membership of such organisations as the Port of London Authority or the Merseyside development corporation. They have only asked questions about something to which they are opposed in principle, but they are afraid to say that it is opposition in principle. The Government do not wish football supporters to be represented on the body, and that is the top and the bottom of it.

Mr. Alan Meale: I am pleased that Conservative Members have spoken about recognition and how many people are represented by these organisations. However, it is peculiar that they have raised it only now, bearing in mind their recognition of organisations that are thinly disguised as something else. For instance, they recognise the Federation of Professional Railway Servants and other organisations in industry and the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists, which represents little. The membership of the 92 league clubs is proportionately higher than Conservative party membership in the 650 constituencies. Where is the balance?

Mr. Wareing: As my hon. Friend is pointing out, it is ludicrous for Conservative Members, as members of an organisation that lacks much of what is regarded as democratic, to attack football supporters associations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has made the essential point that the football supporters and their associations are the consumers of the football industry, and consumers need to be represented. Consumers in all industries should be consulted when their essential needs are the subject of discussion and debate.
The FMA can be certain of carrying with it the weight of the opinion of football supporters only if they are represented on the authority itself. I would not say that all football directors—certainly not the ones that I have met in the House—are the most sensible of men. I remember some years ago the former professional player of Sunderland and Newcastle, Len Shackleton, writing a book, "The Clown Prince of Soccer", in which he had a blank page. At the bottom, he said, "This is the average football director's knowledge of the game." I would not go so far as to say that, except of Luton Town.
Football directors, the Football Association and the Football League should be represented on the FMA, and we seek to enshrine that in statute with our amendment, but so should football supporters, because they are at the rough end not only of this measure but of hooliganism. They are the sufferers, and they are entitled not just to make representations to, but to be represented on, the FMA.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend the Minister is right not to be too prescriptive in laying down who should be members of the new FMA. However, he has given scant

information about whether these people will be paid and if so, whether, like those who will become members of the Football Licensing Authority, they will be disqualified from becoming Members of the House of Commons. He has not said whether the chairman, in receiving remuneration, would enjoy the same sort of position as the chairmen of health authorities. He might have given more information about who will be members of the new body.
However, I agree that to have been prescriptive in the way that the Opposition wish my hon. Friend to be prescriptive would be to limit severely his opportunity to appoint the most appropriate people to the new FMA. He owes a little explanation on whether this will be a remunerated position, and under what circumstances. However, he should resist the Opposition's desire to pack the new FMA with people who have a highly vested interest in football.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to pick up something that I raised with the Minister earlier about the language in the amendment and its reference to a "chairman". It was not just tokenism. I feel strongly that consideration should seriously be given to having women representatives on the FMA. Many of us feel that if the influence of women were stronger and more obvious within football, both in management and on the terraces, some of the macho male domination and violence associated with football would be assuaged. The Minister should consider that.
Football has many women supporters, although not as many as there should be, because the violence deters them from going to matches. I would be interested to know how women have been arrested for violence either outside or inside the grounds. I suspect that, although one or two women have been arrested, that is all. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will bear this point in mind when he comes to study the nominations for the members of the FMA, and that he will make sure that women representatives are on it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is right to say that it is preposterous that there will not be clearly designated places on the FMA for supporters, through whatever body speaks for them. I should like to see a body much larger than the one that exists now, but no one can deny that it speaks for supporters. The various discussions in which Mr. Rogan Taylor has been involved have not only elevated him to a justified position of national significance, but have shown that he speaks a lot of good sense. We need to encourage such people. Many football supporters have views similar to those expressed by Mr. Taylor, and that should be taken into account. We tend to see football supporters as a mindless bunch of lumpen proletarians, interested only in kicking the hell out of old ladies. That is not true. Those who know anything about football know that that is a gross caricature. However, unfortunately, that is the unjustified image of football.
The Football Supporters Association had done a great job in raising the reputation of the great mass of football supporters. It is churlish of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) to sneer at the Football Supporters Association by querying how many members it has. The hon. Member Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) dismissed it because it has only 25,000 members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) said, in proportionate terms, that represents a large membership,


and it is growing apace, because football supporters clubs can also affiliate. Therefore, the FSA can justifiably speak for the great majority of football supporters.

Mr. David Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore suggesting that Manchester United, which has 95,000 members, should also be a member of the FMA?

Mr. Banks: If there was someone from Manchester United who was a genuine supporter and part of the supporters' club, that person would probably be a valued member of the authority. We are saying that there should be someone who clearly speaks for football supporters, and the only organisation that makes it clear that it speaks on behalf of supporters is the Football Supporters Association.

Mr. John Carlisle: If I heard the hon. Gentleman aright, he said that the membership of the Football Supporters Association is growing apace. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that he did not know how many members there were, what is the basis for the hon. Gentleman's figures? How does the hon. Gentleman know how many members there are?

Mr. Banks: I have been reading the back pages of sufficient newspapers, when I have not been reading and laughing at the articles on the front pages about the crisis that the Government have got themselves into over the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to know that the number of applications that are being sent to the FSA is increasing enormously. It is a growing body. The more that supporters realise that there is a body that is prepared to speak for them, the more likely they are to join it.
We are faced with the prospect that football supporters will have as their mouthpiece a bunch of handpicked Tory stooges. No doubt the Thatcherite dictum will be applied: "Is he one of us?" That is something that we must resist.
The question has already been asked, "Why don't we have someone from the Professional Footballers Association?" There can be no argument about how many people the PFA represents. It is obvious that it speaks for professional footballers. Why is it not represented on the Football Membership Authority? It has an authentic voice and a legitimate claim to be heard.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say, "The Association can write to me." If there is to be something called a Football Membership Authority, we want to see supporters, however they are selected, and players, however they are selected, represented on it. We suspect, with some justification, that when the Minister decides who will become members of the FMA, the first and major qualification will be a Tory party membership card and not some knowledge of football. It is no good the Minister saying that he will be different and not follow the practice of the past, because we know how all quangos have been approached by the Government.

Mr. Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1983 a survey was carried out of health authority membership? When previous Governments were in office, the balance between Conservative and Labour Members was about 60:40. Following the election of the Tory Government in 1979, it was found that by 1983 the membership was 9:1 in favour of the Government. That reinforces the fears that my hon. Friend is expressing.

Mr. Banks: Indeed. The statistical as well as the anecdotal evidence shows that the present Minister for Sport, or any Minister who takes his place—no doubt two or three will do so before we have the Football Membership Authority up and running, if it ever is brought to that stage—will have as his primary consideration the affiliation and loyalty to the Conservative party of the individual that he is considering. That is not good enough, and that is why we have tabled amendments (a), (b) and (c).
I much regret that I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. I have asked my colleagues who were members of it whether there was any mention in Committee of members of the Football Membership Authority receiving payments. Will the chair of the authority receive any form of payment? That is an important matter which we should know about, along with all the others that I have raised.
I ask the Minister to outline his proposals and not merely to say, "Anyone can write to me. I wish it to be understood that my door is always open." We must ensure that there are authentic spokespersons to represent the supporters and the players.
I have never heard the hon. Member for Luton, North question whom the National Viewers and Listeners Association, with Mary Whitehouse, represents. She and the association constitute one of the strongest supporters of the Conservative party. It is listened to more than any other organisation within the Conservative party when it comes to broadcasting standards. I doubt whether Mrs. Mary Whitehouse represents any more than a mere handful of loonies and nutters within the Tory party in the shire counties. It comes ill from the hon. Member for Luton, North to tell the Football Supporters Association that it does not speak on behalf of football supporters.

Mr. Burt: I differ from Opposition Members, because I do not believe that the door is being shut in the face of supporters or anyone else who wishes to become a member of the Football Membership Authority. The Bill makes it clear that there is no prescriptive right for anyone to be a member of it, but the door is open for anyone who is nominated and supported. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), in his confusion, talked about whether his party should have asked for eight or nine places. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) found himself in difficulties when he was led down the road of considering whether there should be a member of the Football Membership Authority who was a representative of large football supporters' clubs. There could be a huge FMA if the Bill were prescriptive. It is far better to leave open the question of membership, but I say that with some qualifications, which I shall outline.
Some attention has been paid to the important role and development of football supporters' associations. There is no doubt that over the past few years these associations have come into their own. In a sense, the Bill gives them quite a boost. It will provide them with an opportunity to organise and to work. For some individuals—Rogan Taylor comes to mind—it has meant a profile, and I think that in the main he has responded very well to that. He has become an effective and coherent voice for the supporter.


He has done much to change some of the public attitudes that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was talking about.
None of us believes that the football supporter is the sort of person that the hon. Gentleman described. The football hooligan fits that description, and he is the villain we should be aiming at. The supporter has many of the characteristics that are represented by Rogan Taylor and his colleagues.
As the various groups evolve, we cannot have a clear idea of their structures. We cannot be clear about membership or anything else. I have no doubt, however, that in time the supporters will be properly organised. Probably the distinction will be lost between the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Football Supporters Association. Until that happens, I think it best that the Bill remains open. I strongly counsel my hon. Friend the Minister—he knows that I feel deeply on this issue—that there should be space for a representative voice of the football supporter within the Football Membership Authority.
It is open to question whether there should be representatives from the Professional Footballers Association. Many people believe that the Secretary of the PFA should be a commissioner for football as a whole. Some of us support the Bill because we see it as a turning point in the administration of football. We see the FMA as an embryonic body that can be used as a launching pad for a new approach to football. If the FMA is to have a membership that will take part in changing the face of football, ridding it of the old image which has lost it public support at the turnstiles, it is important that it is a tightly organised body that is determined to make certain changes with an eye to the future. That is a positive step that can be taken in the implementation of the scheme.
The difference between the positive and negative attitudes to the scheme has been evident throughout our consideration of the Bill. Opposition Members retain their view that the Bill is a bad measure and that only negative responses will flow from it. My hon. Friends and I believe that positive opportunities will flow.
I counsel my hon. Friend the Minister not only to consider the arguments of football supporters to be represented on the FMA but to ensure that its members have a clear understanding of the commercial opportunities presented by the membership scheme in changing the face of football. My belief is that only people one step removed from football administration can take a clear view of the future. We all agree that football administrators of the past made mistakes and that a new view should be taken by outsiders of changes that should be made.
Only a few years ago, the two great sports of the United States—football and baseball—were in disarray. Attendances were falling and public interest was slight. Although neither sport suffered from the hooliganism that affects soccer in Britain, both national games were in trouble. Consequently, their structure was reorganised, and football and baseball appointed commissioners to examine the way in which public attitudes to those games could be altered.
Today, as a result, American football and baseball are singularly successful. American football is now so

successful that we can even watch it on television in this country. We gave soccer to the world, but if one walks down a street in Bury, one can see plenty of youngsters wearing tee-shirts featuring American football teams. How many kids in Chicago walk around wearing Manchester United or Football League tee-shirts? There are many opportunities to be exploited for the future of British football to earn revenue that can be returned to the clubs and to their supporters—and they are the people who have been missed out in many of the revenue-gathering operations of the past.
My hon. Friend the Minister should by all means keep the composition of the Football Membership Authority tight, but he ought to ensure that its members are forward-looking and make the most of the opportunities to change the way in which the man in the street views football—so that he, his wife and his children are wooed back to the game. If my hon. Friend the Minister also keeps his options open in respect of support from whichever may be the best suited football supporters' organisation, the Football Membership Authority will be ready for the future and able to exploit the changes that the Bill offers.

Mr. Joe Aston: First, I declare an interest as vice-president of Sheffield Wednesday supporters' club, unanimously elected at its annual general meeting—yet I would not touch the Minister's proposals with a bargepole. The Bill will be the biggest disaster to beset football in a lifetime. It will be an immense, gigantic cock-up of the first order. Any football supporter who wants to be associated with the Football Membership Authority ought to have his head examined.
It surprises me that the Minister for Sport is not sufficiently astute to offer at least four or five places on the FMA to football supporters, so that if the scheme goes wrong he can say, "They helped to start it up. It is all their fault." The Minister does not even have the political nous to look for scapegoats. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer was at least able to blame trade unions for contributing to inflation by making excessive wage demands, but now that the Government have destroyed the trade unions, they can no longer be targeted.
I hope that the supporters' clubs have nothing to do with the FMA, which is 100 per cent. the brainchild of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Sport, and the two apartheid supporters from Luton—the hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Luton, South (Mr. Bright)—who do not believe that anyone at the bottom of the social scale should have a voice. Blame for the scheme's shortcomings should be left fairly and squarely on their doorsteps, and they should sink with it.

Mr. David Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) hit the nail on the head. The Football Association, which has governed the sport for as long as any of us can remember, has made a complete and utter mess of it. The game has lost half its supporters and half the number of people that it previously employed. It frightens me, to say the least, that consideration is being given to inviting the failed administrators responsible for that situation to sit on the FMA, which offers football another chance in its last breath. This is the last time that our great game of football has a chance of rescuing itself from the depths of depression, from hooliganism, and


from criminal activity. I am nervous that we are about to embark on a course that will involve the total idiots that have been running the game for so long.
The association has had three presidents in only one year, and it has been trying to appoint a chief executive for 20 months. It has interviewed 68 candidates but has been unable to find one suitable person to run the Football League. Supporters should be represented on the FMA, but whom does one choose? There are 90,000 Manchester United supporters and even 20,000 paid-up Luton supporters—yet only 15,000 people belong to the Football Supporters Association, which is a ludicrous situation.
For goodness' sake, the Minister must not involve too many failed people from the Football League and Football Association. There is criminal activity both inside and outside the game, and it has not gone away. One thinks of Blackpool and of Stockholm. Far from going away, the problem has grown worse. I recommend that my hon. Friend the Minister chooses carefully from the league and the association those who are to sit on the FMA.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I want to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) but, unfortunately, he has left the Chamber. In arguing against football supporters being represented on the FMA at this stage, he stressed that the Bill offers tremendous commercial advantages. It is because such arguments are used by Conservative Members that football supporters should be involved. They bring an entirely different set of values to bear from the commercial interests that have often influenced Conservative Members.
In Committee, a fracture was evident, in that some hon. Members saw the Bill as a way of containing hooliganism—which it is ill equipped to do—whereas others stressed its commercial potential. People are jumping on the back of a spurious attempt to minimise hooliganism in order to change the whole nature of the game and to bring about a situation of a kind that has been compared with American baseball. We may therefore expect to see the sale of popcorn at half-time and other forms of commercial activity, rather than a continuation of the sport's traditions, whereby supporters attend a match solely to watch their team play. It is the Rogan Taylors of this world who should be involved in the running of the scheme, to bring some semblance of sanity to the Government's proposals.

Mr. Shersby: Much has been said about supporters' clubs being represented on the Football Membership Authority, but perhaps the Minister can say more about its chairman. If the authority has any chance of working well, it needs an outstanding chairman—an outstanding man or woman who is acceptable not only to the world of football but to the police, to this House, and to everyone else who takes an interest in crowd safety.
Can my hon. Friend reveal the chairman's term of office, his job specification, and who will take responsibility for preparing that job specification—particularly bearing in mind that we have been told today that the FMA will be not a quango but a limited company? Can my hon. Friend say also who will be responsible for drawing up the FMA's articles of association? One presumes that that will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but that is not clear from the amendment.
Further, when is the commencement order likely to be laid? As I recall, we were clearly told on Second Reading that the House would have an opportunity to vote on the commencement order when it was laid. I assume, therefore, that the order will incorporate a list of authority members and another of the organisations that nominated them, and, above all, that it will deal with the important question of the chairmanship.

6 pm

Mr. John Fraser: I agree with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that the chair of the football authority will need to be a genius to save, if not the game, at least some clubs from potential destruction. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) severe doubts about whether supporters ought to be involved: it seems almost like participating in one's own funeral as a pallbearer.
In the past, I have spoken rather harshly about the Under-Secretary of State, but I do not propose to do so in the future, for good practical reasons. After all, I do not know whether tomorrow he will be Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary or Secretary of State for the Environment. If a former Lambeth borough councillor can become Chancellor, I do not know what will happen next. The actions of the chairman of selectors for the Government have been somewhat unpredictable recently, so I think that we had better be polite to the Under-Secretary.
If people are to be involved in decision making—I am thinking particularly of exemptions from the scheme—those people should include football supporters. It is unthinkable that, when a statutory body such as this is set up—be it a quango or a limited company—primacy should not be given to those actually engaged in the game of football.
We hear talk of the need for self-regulation in the City, and the need for it to be carried out by those most closely involved; similarly, it would have been inconceivable for the Manpower Services Commission not to be composed primarily of employers and trade unions. That is customary in the case of nearly every statutory body. The recently established Legal Aid Board, for example, although not composed exclusively of lawyers, contains a sensible number, who know what is going on. Although the Under-Secretary may not wish to write such a requirement into the statute, he should give a clear undertaking that those most closely involved in football will have a part to play and the ability to comment.
In my experience of the terraces, supporters want to get on with watching the game without interruptions or hooliganism. I often hear more sensible suggestions about policing from supporters than from the governors or the police themselves. They complain that all the supporters of the home team must diagonally cross the path of all the away team supporters, and their suggestions about how entry and exit should be organised demonstrate that they have far more common sense than many others who are involved.
The overwhelming majority of supporters want an end to the pitch invasions that hold up games. The Under-Secretary has often referred to the invasion of the Crystal Palace pitch by Birmingham fans, but the last thing that the Crystal Palace fans wanted was such an invasion: that is how any supporter would feel when his


team was ahead and had a chance of going into the first division or taking part in the play-offs. He does not want to see the match abandoned and the team having to start all over again, perhaps on a neutral ground, thus losing its advantage. There is much good sense among supporters, and much will to make the game work without hooliganism. It would be monstrous for the Government not at least to give an undertaking that supporters and others closely involved in the game will be members of the authority.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), whose opinion most Conservative member respect, prefaced his remarks with a personal attack on my hon. Friend the Minister. That was quite unnecessary and, if I may say so, somewhat unneighbourly. One of the Bill's merits is that it is rather difficult for casual supporters such as the hon. Gentleman to drift into the Chamber and make such comments. His later comments, however, were more creditable, and, indeed, more in the spirit of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).
I am also sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) are not in the Chamber. They were worried—as perhaps we all are—about the composition of the Football Membership Authority, fearing that it might be peopled by Tory stooges, as I believe they are described. The hon. Member for Newhan, North-West also accused my party of putting nominated members on to health authorities, and pointed out that there were more Conservative members of such authorities in 1983 than in previous years.
Those hon. Members are like the pot calling the kettle black. When Labour has taken office in local authorities—which, thankfully, has occurred very little recently—it has unhesitatingly removed Conservative councillors from school governing bodies, for instance, and has appointed its own supporters to local authority posts with no compunction. Unlike the Conservative party, Labour has not left even a vestige of opposition to its views. If the Secretary of State decides—as I am sure that he will not—to place Conservative supporters on the authority, on the nomination of six members, that will be by no means unfortunate, as they may be the only people willing and sensible enough to see the scheme go through.
The only sense spoken in this debate and in Committee has come from Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Small Heath—much though we respect his views—let the cat out of the bag. His amendment requires members of the football supporters' associations to be members of the FMA, yet he admitted to the House that those associations had no members, which seemed to come as a complete surprise to Opposition Members. He could not tell the House exactly what their composition was. Obviously they have officers; perhaps we should ask the right hon. Gentleman whether those officers are self-apppointed, or whether elections take place. Who are the members of the associations? But I must correct myself: according to the right hon. Gentleman, they have no members.
How, in all logic, can the right hon. Gentleman put down an amendment requiring bodies with no members to be represented on the FMA? If the FMA were to say to the

supporters' associations, "Please nominate one of your members for representation," the associations would have to reply, "I am sorry, we cannot do so, because we have no members."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) pointed out, in his utter confusion the right hon. Gentleman stated in amendment (a) that the authority should have eight members when he meant nine. There is, indeed, complete confusion on the Opposition Benches about who represents football supporters. Is it the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs, or is it the Football Supporters Association? Is it the members of Manchester United supporters association, the 20,000 members of Luton supporters association or, indeed, the many people throughout the country who are members of associations supporting their individual clubs, but not necessarily members of the FSA?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that our experience in Committee with FSA members—particularly my experience—was less than fortunate. The only hooliganism that took place, albeit after the Committee had risen for lunch, was perpetrated against me, when a member of the FSA brandished papers and threatened to inflict physical violence on me because of what I had said. If that is the sort of person that the Opposition would like to be represented on the FMA, so be it, but they must decide for themselves exactly who should be nominated.
It is perhaps a little unfortunate that we have not yet reached amendment No. 8, in which my hon. Friend the Minister speaks of giving
such persons as appear … to represent the interests of football supporters an opportunity to make representations.
Perhaps that would be a better idea. There is no doubt whatsoever that the confusion spread by the right hon. Member for Small Heath and his hon. Friends makes it difficult for us to see who should be on the FMA. We are far better to take the wise words and counsel of my hon. Friend the Minister, as we have throughout the Committee, that the FMA and the Secretary of State will have the wisdom and foresight to include on that authority representatives of the supporters' groups.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) accused me of wanting to have no supporters on the FMA. That is a total misrepresentation, although that has not been unusual for the hon. Gentleman in our deliberations on the Bill. I agree with him that the supporters should have a voice. But regrettably, the Opposition in their ineptitude have not been able to suggest anyone who would be truly representative or able to nominate anyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who would the hon. Gentleman suggest?"] Opposition Members ask who I would suggest. As my hon. Friend the Minister has suggested in amendment No. 8, I would be happy for representatives of football supporters' associations to suggest particular names. When I refer to football supporters' associations, I refer to associations throughout the country, not to that mysterious, ghostlike organisation that exists with no members, when we do not know whether its representatives are elected or appointed, whom they represent and where that representation will go.
My hon. Friend has the utmost support from Conservative Members, who throughout the passage of the Bill sought clarity of purpose, and wish to make sure that those involved in the running of the FMA know something about the game. He has our support because we are convinced that we have the right formula for correcting


the problems that have been listed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I fully support the amendment.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I intend to detain the House just for a moment. I had no intention of speaking in this debate until I heard the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). It is as well to put the record straight. Many hon. Members from both sides of the House were present at that Committee meeting. It is true that when the Committee adjourned for lunch, one supporter, who rightly felt very angry at some of the nonsense from the hon. Member for Luton, North, voiced his opinions very strongly. But there was no physical contact and he only brandished a piece of paper. We witnessed that, and it was most unfair of the hon. Gentleman to raise that matter and slur the organisation concerned. I hope that is clearly on record, and I see that my hon. Friends agree that that is an accurate description of what took place.
We should take some credit for the fact that until now the Minister has appeared to be converted to the idea that football supporters should be heard in the higher echelons of the game. Not only has he said that in the House, in committee and in other forums throughout the country, but he said it to a very wide audience on "Wogan". He said that supporters should be heard by football clubs at board level. If he feels that they should be on the boards of football clubs, it is a short step to allow them on the FMA.
I hope that the Minister will say clearly that he is in favour of the Opposition amendment. It is clear that the people who represent football supporters are the true lovers of football. They are the people who stand on the terraces whatever the weather supporting that great game. They bring an element of sense into the whole debate. That has been recognised by most people involved in the game, including Lord Justice Taylor, who now turn to those bodies because they talk the level-headed sense that we expect from genuine football supporters. Therefore, we urge the Minister, who has turned a little in our favour, to come full circle, accept the force of our argument and ensure, on the face of the Bill, that those representatives are on the FMA.

Mr. John Greenway: I have listened to all the arguments throughout the debate and it seems to me that the crucial point has been missed. We are dealing with an enabling Bill.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and me that six members were not sufficient and that there ought to be eight. Tonight he suggested that the figure should be nine. One could go on and on, but the real issue is that in drafting the Bill and concluding our deliberations on it, we must be sure that it specifies the right number of representatives. That number has to be sufficient to ensure that there will be room for organisations with a valid claim to be represented on the FMA. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to state clearly that he recognises the overwhelming argument for representation not only from the FA and the Football League which have suggested that they are willing to serve but from the Football Supporters Association.
As the House knows, I am not a proponent of the Bill. In general, I am against it, but if we are to have a Bill and

a scheme, it behoves all of us involved in football to try to ensure that the scheme works. If, as the proponents of the Bill suggest, its purpose is to police out the hooligans, we shall be left with the overwhelming majority of law-abiding supporters attending football matches. If we are to have membership schemes, we want meaningful schemes along the lines of those that Lord Justice Popplewell suggested in his report, so that fans and clubs feel a much closer sense of identity with one another.
I have put my name to amendment (c) tabled by the right hon. Member for Small Heath. Although it may be inappropriate to add those words to the Bill, will my hon. Friend give a firm assurance tonight that there will be an opportunity for football supporter representations on the Football Membership Authority?

Mr. Moynihan: I start on an exceptionally serious note by saying that of course I am totally at one with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about the ugly and sickening behaviour of some fans who travelled to Poland. I had extensive reports from officials working at the match. Moreover, I received reports at first hand from travelling fans, not least through the usual obscene and sickening messages, written on the back of postcards displaying black and white pictures of Auschwitz and coffins. That was in addition to the excrement, the death threats and the used condoms which my secretary finds far too regularly in the morning post. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is utterly sickening. Individuals who bring the game into disrepute internationally should be brought to book in whatever way possible for that aspect of their behaviour. That is something on which the right hon. Gentleman and I are totally at one.
I recognise his point about individuals who posture as National Front supporters, although I doubt whether they have the faintest clue what the National Front stands for. I believe that, subject to the will of Parliament any aspect of that behaviour should be covered by the conditions of membership irrespective of whether people are in favour of the scheme. The FMA, whoever is on it, should take the firmest action against behaviour that brings the game into disrepute, wherever it exists.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath mentioned the membership of the FMA, which has been well debated. For different reasons, which I accept, hon. Members have spoken for and against football supporters' representatives being members of the FMA. I shall repeat the clear undertaking which I gave in Committee. I said that we are sympathetic to the involvement of football supporters' organisations in the running of the FMA. I continued:
It would not be helpful to refer to the existing organisations by name in the Bill because there would be difficulties if they were to go out of business, or if a new supporters' organisation appeared."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 July 1989; c. 336.]
Two years ago, we would not have been debating the Football Supporters Association, and it is important to bear that in mind when placing the names of existing organisations on the face of legislation that will last a long time.
I repeat that I am sympathetic to the notion of directly involving supporters in the running of the FMA. The amendment is drawn sufficiently widely to ensure that, from the four appointments and two nominations, the


Secretary of State will be able carefully to consider the nomination of football supporters' organisations when considering the establishment of the FMA.
I hope that, by emphasing that point, I have satisfied not only my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) but my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and other hon. Members.
We could have had an equally sensitive and detailed debate on the merits of a range of footballing bodies being represented on the FMA. We could have argued a strong case for the Professional Footballers Association, for the Referees Association and the Football League executive staffs association. A strong case can be made for the consideration of supporters and their organisations, and I hope that nominations for the consideration of the Secretary of State will come from as wide a representation of bodies involved in football as possible. I strongly repeat the undertaking I gave about the sympathy of the Secretary of State for the direct involvement of supporters in the running of the FMA.
I had hoped that the debate would not be as lengthy as it has been, because we responed directly to amendment No. 54, which was moved in Committee by the right hon. Member for Small Heath, who kindly said that we had responded to a number of his suggestions. He moved an amendment to ensure the independence of the chairman of the FMA. He was keen to ensure that the chairman is not involved in the ownership or management of any premises at which designated football matches are played. He suggested that no fewer than six members of the authority should hold office under the terms and conditions laid down in the schedule. In practice, we have moved to seven members for the authority.
I hope that I have responded fully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate the point that he made about eight members of the FMA. I hope that he recognises that it is important that his concerns about the independence of the chairman, which are shared by the football authorities and the Government, are met by amendment No. 2.
Payment and the terms of appointment of members of the FMA will be delt with in the articles of association of the company. As hon. Members who served on the Committee know, it will be a private company and not a quango. We should therefore keep the role of legislation in it to a minimum.
We have responded to the points that were pressed most strongly in Committee about the independence of the FMA, but it will be for the bodies that form the company to draw up its articles of association and deal with the term of the chairman's appointment, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). The Secretary of State will take an interest in such matters, because he will be considering the appointment of the FMA, but he will not write its articles of association.
The FMA is very different from the Football Licensing Authority, which is a quango and is thus subject to all the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham made about health authorities and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Those points will not apply to the FMA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned terms of office, job specifications and

articles of association. All those issues will be worked out by the FMA and will be subject to the futher consideration of the Secretary of State when he approves the FMA, subject to the will of the House in the first of the two debates that are expected to take place following Lord Justice Taylor's final report.
I recognise that that may not completely satisfy Opposition Members, but I hope that the firm commitment that I have given, in the light of the conflicting views that have been expressed, proves our keen and determined willingness to ensure the active involvement of football supporters not only in then FMA but, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, in their clubs and, through their clubs, in the running of the game. There are many international examples that British football can readily follow, not least Portugal. Although that argument is tangential to the Bill, it must nevertheless be considered carefully by football's authorities.

Mr. Denis Howell: With the leave of the House, may I thank the Minister and acknowledge that he met us about the independence of the chairman of the FMA?
Naturally, we are disappointed by what the Minister said. Normally, we would have sought to divide the House on the three amendments, but as we are already hours late, and as that would take 45 minutes, we shall not do so. I am advised by my right hon. and hon. Friends that we shall have one vote at nine o'clock, which will illustrate our various objections.
I thank the Minister for moving half a step in our direction, which is all that we can expect at this hour of the night.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 3, line 11, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall not designate any body corporate as the Football Membership Authority unless he is satisfied that its articles of association make provision securing—

(a) that its Board shall comprise a Chairman and six other members, of whom the Chairman and four of the other members are persons approved by the Secretary of State before their election as Chairman or as member, as the case may be, and the remaining two members are persons nominated by the Secretary of State, and
(b) that the Chairman shall be a person who has no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as Chairman;

and all the members of the Board shall hold office in accordance with the articles of association of the body corporate.
(3B) The Secretary of State may withdraw the designation of a body corporate as the Football Membership Authority if he ceases to be satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (3A) above.

No. 4, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'withdrawn' and insert 'divested'.[Mr. Moynihan.]

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) Where the Secretary of State withdraws the designation of a body as the Football Membership Authority, he shall, as soon as it appears to him to be appropriate to do so, lay before each House of Parliament a report stating his reasons for the withdrawal.'.
In Committee, I explained that it was the Government's intention that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament on any decision to withdraw his designation of


a body as the FMA. I promised to consider whether it was necessary to provide for this on the face of the Bill, and, if so, to bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report. That issue was again raised tonight by Opposition Members.
Amendment No. 5 follows from that undertaking. It requires the Secretary of State to explain in a report to each House the reasons for the withdrawal of his designation, and for the report to be laid as soon as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so.
The reference to timing is important. If the Bill were to require the Secretary of State to make his report within a specified period, as was suggested at an earlier stage, the circumstances of a particular case could make it very difficult, or perhaps impossible, for him to comply. If, for example, there were allegations that those running the FMA had committed criminal offences, it would clearly be impossible for the Secretary of State to make his report in advance of the resolution of the associated legal proceedings. The amendment will ensure that Parliament is fully informed as soon as possible of any decision that the Secretary of State takes to withdraw his designation.

Clause 4

NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP SCHEME: MAKING,APPROVAL,MODIFICATION ETC.

Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 47, after 'section', insert '(a)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Mr. Moynihan: The amendments require the Footbal Membership Authority to consult interested parties in drawing up or modifying the national membership scheme.
Amendment No. 6 requires the FMA to consult the Football Association of Wales and fulfils an undertaking I gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is, with the assistance of a working party of interested parties set up for the purpose, looking at the matches in Wales to which the scheme should apply. It is important that the Football Association of Wales should have the opportunity of making an input as the scheme is drawn up or in the event of its being modified. I am happy, by way of this amendment, to ensure that the association is given this opportunity.
The third amendment concerns the important matter of safeguarding the interests of football supporters. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) moved an amendment in Committee to add the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs to the bodies that the FMA must consult under clause 4(2). I explained in Committee that the Government are sympathetic to the notion of involving the football supporters' organisations and I said that I would consider how best to achieve it.
As I have explained fully to the House, it remains my view that it would not be helpful to refer to the existing supporters' organisations by name in the Bill, not least because there could be difficulties if they should cease to exist, or if a new organisation should be formed. The

amendment therefore provides for the FMA to consult supporters' organisations. Those organisations would then have the opportunity of making representations on the detailed scheme as it is drawn up or on any changes made to it. I commend this approach to the House.
The Football Membership Authority's working party on the scheme is already consulting the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and the Football Supporters Association. However, I regret that the chairman of the FSA may not take the positive approach to the scheme that I had hoped for. Nevertheless, it is important that the FMA should consult supporters. The Government are fully committed to involving football supporters in drawing up the scheme. They must be involved and given the chance to have their say. The amendment will bring that about.

Mr. Rowlands: I thank the Minister for responding to our call in Committee to ensure that the Football Association for Wales will be properly and statutorily recognised in the consultation process. As the Minister will acknowledge, we made strenuous efforts to exclude Wales from the Bill but, having failed to do so, it is right and proper that the Football Association of Wales should have a proper statutory role in the consultation process. I hope that the Football Association of Wales will seek to strengthen and develop its links with football and football supporters in Wales.
The association had the image of an aged establishment that was not capable of responding and relating to the widespread and growing support for football—both league and non-league—in Wales. Having been given that function and role, I hope that, in future, the Football Association of Wales will start to reflect the energy, excitement, support and commitment of a large number of people. Although rugby is our national sport, football has great support in the Principality. I welcome the opportunity that the Minister has provided for the Football Association of Wales to take part in the vital consultation process.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister kept saying that the Government were determined that supporters should be consulted. However, what matters is not what the Minister says at the Dispatch Box but what is written in the Bill. If the Bill is amended as the Minister expects it to be, it will provide for consultation with the Football Association and the Football League, but football supporters will have only an "opportunity to make representations." Anyone has the opportunity to make representations to the FMA. The Minister should find some other way of ensuring that football supporters have a statutory right to be consulted, rather than the wishy-washy permissive approach that he is enshrining within the Bill.

Mr. Moynihan: Under the Bill, the FMA, in preparing a draft scheme that fulfils the requirements of clause 5, will have to
give such persons as appear to it to represent the interests of football supporters an opportunity to make representations.
That is a strong commitment. I have no doubt that, if lively and active football supporters' associations were not given the opportunity to represent the interests of the bodies that they form, they would act swiftly to seek judicial review.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 47, after 'Association', insert
',the Football Association of Wales'

No. 8, in page 3, line 48, at end insert
'; and
(b) give such persons as appear to it to represent the interests of football supporters an opportunity to make representations.'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Mr. Jim Lester: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 4, line 10, at end insert
'Provided that the Secretary of State and the Football Membership Authority are satisfied that any equipment to be used for the operation of the scheme has been thoroughly tested for a sufficient period of time as to allow such testing to take place during the winter months.'
The amendment is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It spells out clearly the test of the Government's good faith. All along we have given credibility to the Government's promise that they would not implement any scheme unless they were satisfied that it was technically sound.
We need to insert the amendment because we all recognise that the technology needs to be tested in a full profile of the football season. It will not be enough for it to be tested for a brief period during a certain time of the year, because in football things happen at odd times. For example, cup matches are played late in the season and a first division club could play a "giant-killing" non-league club. Nobody can predict when such matches will occur. We need to cover occasions such as Boxing day. Many people go home to spend Christmas with their families and it is popular to go to a football match. Throughout the country such matches attract many casual supporters and the system needs to be tested to ensure that it causes no problems.
Those of us who are familiar with technical equipment know that the equipment will be used only at weekends and not necessarily every weekend. We need to be sure that it does not respond to adverse temperatures and condensation. I am sure that if he were here my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) would agree that the Luton scheme, with which the House has been bored on more than one occasion, has sometims failed because of condensation. We need to ensure that the technical equipment functions in all weather conditions.
Perhaps the most important point to put to the Minister is that we must test the criteria by which the machinery operates. After Hillsborough, is the criterion to ensure that the maximum number of people gain entry into the ground with the least possible trouble?
That is the crowd safety argument mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale in a previous debate. Are we testing the ability to exclude people? One of my principal criticisms is that we may be putting up to half a million people through machinery every weekend in an attempt to try to exclude any one of the 1,839 who have been excluded from matches since 1987.
The police are concerned to know what rights they have to arrest anybody who has gone through the equipment and whether the flashing red light is sufficient evidence to arrest or keep people outside the ground. That is an argument that we have had many times. It is not a popular argument, because keeping people outside creates tremendous pressure outside the grounds. Is it the intention that people should be let in and subsequently be

taken away quietly to some other place within the club precincts to be questioned to find out whether the machine has made an error?
Some hon. Members have referred to the errors made by computer-type machinery. When I was at a football match this weekend I looked to see whether the flashing light referred to the right person. When a light flashes at a turnstile there are many people around, and we have to ensure that the card applies to the right person.

Mr. Pike: Is it not possible that all the turnstiles in that row—they are always in blocks—will flash red at the same time? Is that not one of the difficulties that will be shown up if the Bill is forced through Parliament and a reason why it is important that the equipment should be tested in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Lestor: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. Most members of the Committee who oppose the Bill, on grounds both of practicality and of principle, feel that great store must be placed on the Minister's pledge not to implement the scheme unless he is totally satisfied that it is the correct one. There must be exhaustive testing.

Mr. Roland Boyes: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am vice-chairman of Hartlepool United football club. The other day, I had the pleasure of welcoming the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to the club——

Mr. Ashton: Who won?

Mr. Boyes: York City won.
This is a good amendment. If the equipment kept breaking down in winter, it would cost money to repair it. We have just spent nine hours at Hartlepool discussing our financial problems—that is on the record in the newspapers. The Minister says that we shall have to contribute towards the cost of installing the equipment. During the winter months, the equipment may continually break down and we may have to fetch in electronic engineers and computer experts, at great expense. I am sure that I speak on behalf of dozens of football clubs when I say that the cost of repairing the equipment will be a great drain on our resources.

Mr. Lester: That is a point of finance, but the point that the hon. Gentleman makes from his detailed knowledge of the game is valid. From 5 May, in the run-up to the World cup, there will not be many opportunities to test these machines. My hon. Friend the Minister should tell us how he thinks testing can take place and, on the point made by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), how it can be financed and who will finance it.
I am sure that there will be no great rush of volunteers among the clubs to be the test men.

Mr. Randall: I have a reservation about this. Rather than my making a long speech about it, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can comment on it. The amendment places great emphasis on equipment. If we are to test the scheme, should we not test the whole system, not just the hardware and the software? After all, pages 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill are about the licence. Should not the amendment, therefore, be just a little wider?

Mr. Lester: I suspect that licensing would go on regardless of the equipment and the testing of the scheme. The criteria hinge on the type of system and equipment,


which must be tested exhaustively before the authorities can even proceed to issue licences. I cannot imagine any clubs rushing to volunteer to be test men and putting their supporters through the business of taking out cards, or using whatever system is recommended, to find out whether the system works. I have heard that it will cost £2·5 million to carry out testing, before we get anywhere near the major scheme. It will be interesting to know who is supposed to provide the £2·5 million to the volunteer clubs—which I suspect will be unwilling to take part—to see whether the equipment works. These questions and the amendment deserve careful consideration.

Mr. John Carlisle: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what definite information he has on the cost, if indeed there will be a cost? Might not the scheme be implemented by some companies at no cost to the clubs due to the commercial opportunities which might spin off from it, and would my hon. Friend welcome that?

Mr. Lester: I would welcome anything which imposed no financial cost on clubs, many of which are already struggling to make ends meet, but I suspect that my hon. Friend would be as amazed as I if any fairy godmothers were found waiting in the wings to come forward with free schemes. Whatever the criteria to be included in the Bill, we must be sure that the equipment and the scheme are workable.
The onus must be on the Government, who are proposing this legislation, to ensure that it will work. I cannot see how all the testing can be done before the 1991 season, as the Arthur Young report stated. The onus on the Government is heavy because they proposed the legislation against the better judgment of 91 of the 92 clubs, the 430,000 regular football supporters and the totality of football players, as we have heard today. The Government must be sure that they are right and that their scheme will work, against the overwhelming evidence of all those who are closely involved in the game and who would be the first to rush to the Government if they were as afraid of the problems of hooliganism as some Conservative Members have suggested they are.
I am happy that this is the fourth year in which attendances at football matches have increased. At the weekend, I had a good look around to see how many ladies and children were in the audience at the match between Nottingham Forest and Queen's Park Rangers. I am happy to say that a high proportion of women and children were present on that happy and enjoyable family occasion. They came to a good match and enjoyed the whole game.

Mr. John Carlisle: Including those on the terraces?

Mr. Lester: Yes, those on the terraces as well.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I support the amendment. Many of us who are most strongly opposed to the Bill oppose it as a matter of principle. Throughout its passage, there have undoubtedly been a considerable number of occasions when the practicalities of the measure have seemed as important to those of us who oppose it as a matter of principle as the principle itself. If the scheme is to be approved, it must work in all circumstances and have the capacity to deal with the improbables and, indeed, the

very emergency which we discussed earlier. For that reason, I believe that the amendment is clothed in common sense. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Implicit in the amendment is the suggestion that one is necessarily dealing with electronic equipment. I know that at least one of the six proposals that are still before the Minister for consideration does not necessarily involve electronic equipment. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to offer any announcement this evening, but the House wants to be assured that the most careful consideration will be given to all the options so that the option that is finally chosen is regarded as the best possible means by which the scheme should be operated and is subjected to the most rigorous testing. In a sense, if the means by which the scheme is to be made to work at football grounds on Saturday afternoons are wrongly chosen or in any way defective, the apprehensions of many of us—that the difficulties outside football grounds may be compounded rather than alleviated—may turn out to be well founded.
The Government have chosen to embark upon this scheme. It is incumbent on them to satisfy themselves by the most rigorous and compelling evidence that it will stand up to all the strains and stresses to which it will necessarily be subjected.

Mr. John Greenway: I want to deal only with matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) did not mention. Even though some of us oppose the Bill, as I mentioned earlier, it is vital that if we are to have a scheme, it should be seen to work. The confidence of the supporters that the scheme will work is crucial. At some stage, we shall have to stop talking down the Bill and ensure that fans are not put off coming to football matches because of their concern that dreadful events may happen at games.
The equipment that may be used in introducing the scheme lies at the heart of that concern, not only because the fans are worried about safety, but because they are worried about whether they will be admitted to matches to which they are entitled to be admitted and whether there may be some malfunction of the equipment, which may misread their cards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe is right to include the words "winter months" in the amendment. About three seasons ago, York City football club played Arsenal and Liverpool in FA cup matches, one in the fourth round and the other in the fifth. Both matches were played on Saturdays in February and the fans had to clear about a foot of snow off the pitch and terraces so that the game could go ahead. The television cameramen were also keen to help us to ensure that the games went ahead, and both matches were played in sub-zero temperatures. It is important that the electronic equipment used is shown to be capable of working in such conditions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, FA cup games throw up unusual fixtures and they are usually played in the winter months. It is important that the equipment is seen to work and to be capable of dealing not only with winter fixtures, but with large crowds at some of the smaller grounds, which are used to seeing only 3,000 or 4,000 spectators on Saturdays—and sometimes, sadly, even fewer—and which suddenly have to deal with 15,000 or 20,000 spectators, if they are some of the bigger stadiums in the third and fourth divisions.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) made a point about the cost of repairs. He tried to


suggest that if the test is carried out for too long, we could be throwing a considerable amount of money at testing and dealing with breakdowns. The finances of most third and fourth division clubs will not allow for a massive influx of money to make the equipment repairs to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. David Evans: At Luton, we introduced a computerised system and the cost of testing was zero. It took no time to test. It was tested completely within one day and, over the past three and a half years, the antiquated system has not failed us. I suggest that, with the modern equipment available, the point about the time for testing is just a red herring from the Opposition.

Mr. Greenway: One of the difficulties of having a test carried out at only a few clubs—several hon. Members have referred to the Government's intentions on this—is that we shall be dealing only with small numbers. When the scheme is in force in all 92 clubs, 450,000 to 500,000 people could be going through the turnstiles on the same day and they will all be using the same national membership scheme database.

Mr. Lester: If I remember correctly from our discussion in Committee, it will be a Europewide scheme, not a scheme only for the United Kingdom. That is a rather different matter from 8,000 regular attenders at Luton.

Mr. Greenway: We seem to be digressing from the point raised by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington. He said that it was surely right that the equipment should be seen to work before all 92 clubs had to put their hands in—for many of them—fairly empty pockets to pay for the equipment in the first place.
There is an argument about whether it will cost small clubs any money to institute the scheme. I remain to be convinced, as do the chairmen of the majority of Football League clubs, that the scheme could be introduced at no cost to them. I assume that there will be a cost and we require a proper period of testing to ensure that there is no waste of money. If we do not have a proper testing period and then find that the scheme does not work, much of the money will be wasted, and in many of our league grounds, that money could more reasonably be spent on new seating and facilities for supporters. If the scheme fails because it has not been tested adequately, there will be not only the serious cost to the football clubs that have paid money for the equipment to be installed: the political cost to the Government of failure will be extremely serious. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on that.
The amendment is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) suggested, born out of an attempt to filibuster the introduction of the scheme. It is not a wrecking amendment, but is born out of the desire of those of us who oppose the Bill, but who none the less see the political reality that there will be a scheme, to make the scheme work. Unless the fans have full confidence that the scheme will work, there could be serious political consequences.

Mr. Boyes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's last point. Will he accept that we on the Hartlepool board want to stay within the law? We may not like it, but we would accept the Bill when it became law. However, to say that we accept the law does not mean that we can implement it;

we do not have the cash to do so. The Minister has said that there will be zero cost, but during the passage of the Bill, I have not heard the Minister say definitely that Hartlepool United, York City or any other club will be given money for the equipment, the repairs and the buildings necessary for the equipment. The Government have never told the House that there will be a grant or any other help towards that.

Mr. Greenway: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he has made a valid point, which requires no further comment from me.
The political cost of the failure of the scheme would be damaging for the Government, and I say that in sincerity and good faith. In Committee—I am sorry that I was unable to serve on that Committee—the Government gave undertakings that the scheme would be introduced on a national scale only when it could be shown to work and the technology was available. The amendment is the litmus test of that commitment.

Mr. Norris: Although the amendment may be technically unnecessary, it raises an important issue of practicability. However, we shall vote against it if necessary, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) will not press the amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), speaking for the SLD—I do not want to get the name wrong—made an important distinction. He said that the Bill raises two issues, one of principle and the other of practicability and he is right to draw that distinction. I am concerned about the principle, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) emphasised that in this forum we should be debating the principle.
I make that point because I believe that the practicability can be taken for granted. I do not want to be trite and wax on, although that would be breaking the habit of a lifetime, and talk about the impact of new technology. However, in an age such as this, it is surely not beyond the wit of man to devise a perfectly straightforward system to admit people to a ground, and to do so throughout normal temperature conditions and in all the normal circumstances at football grounds. Those of us who have been the most vigorous supporters of the Government's proposals, and who remain so convinced, take it for granted that the scheme that is introduced will be sensible and will have undergone all the normal, rigorous tests that should be applied to such a scheme. It must be a matter of common accord that, when the scheme is introduced, the last thing we want is for it to break down and to cause more problems than it is designed to prevent.
It is an extraordinary proposition that we should allow our attempt to control the problems of violence in football —which is the whole aim of the Bill, as I keep saying—to be frustrated because of our inability to produce cards that swipe properly in sub-zero temperatures. I have much more faith in our abilities, and the considerable number of companies that have shown an interest in providing the technology leads me to believe that we can find a solution and a technology that work.

7 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister told us in Committee that the cards would operate nationally. That means that someone can go in the morning to a post office or to the


shed at Halifax to get himself a card. He then has access to any league match in the country. He can nip down and watch a game at Arsenal. The technology must be such that, with about 300,000 people coming in in the last 15 minutes before the game, telephone connections with a national computer can be used to check the membership cards. If such technology existed, the scheme might work, but I do not think that even the Minister believes that it exists.
On Friday when we discussed the ways and means resolution, the Minister said what he will presumably say in his answer to this debate:
if the Government went ahead with a national membership scheme, we should need to be satisfied that the technology was up and working and correct so that the scheme could be implemented effectively from day 1."—[Official Report, 27 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 1267.]
It seems to me that we shall not get a practicable scheme. The principle will be established and then the Government will back off from their commitments regarding the practicalities.

Mr. Lester: rose——

Mr. Norris: Technically, I should at least get back to my feet before giving way to my hon. Friend who so earnestly wishes to intervene.
Let me respond to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has wrongly described the technical qualifications of the scheme. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister confirming what the essential elements will be. It is a sine qua non of the scheme that the card should be transferable from ground to ground and that it should be acceptable at all the league grounds to which the scheme applies. I see nothing particularly technically difficult about that. I understand that a large number of companies have tendered for the contract to provide the technical equipment, and I look forward to the successful tenderers producing a perfectly serviceable product.
It is important to make two points about cost. There are two elements: one is the capital cost of installing the equipment and the second is the day-to-day cost of producing the cards. I understand that the half-dozen or so serious contenders for the contract—I am not sure of the exact number—have said that the facility, or the capital works, will be provided at no cost to the club. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale ( Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), who represent the heartfelt interests of smaller and less wealthy clubs, may have missed this point when reading the reports of our proceedings in Committee. My hon. Friends and I well understand that the last thing that a club whose finances are in a parlous condition wants is a large capital imposition resulting from this scheme. But I understand that that will simply not be the case and that all the tenderers will deliver on the basis that there is no capital cost to the clubs involved.
That is not, however, the whole story. The second element of cost is what one might call the revenue cost —the cost of providing cards to individual spectators. Apparently, the maximum cost of producing the cards will be about £9·90 for three seasons—a gross cost of £3·30 per season. It is important to stress that that is the gross cost. Suppose that there are 20 home matches per season; £3·30 divided by 20 is hardly a great impost on spectators.
Moreover, many companies have recognised the advantages of using the card as a means of marketing their products and services in co-operation with football clubs, and no doubt the clubs represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington would be just as interested in sponsorship opportunities as some of their larger brethren. Such sponsorships can reduce the cost to below the £3·30 per season figure, and it is to be hoped that in many cases the cost will be virtually nil.
Those who say that the scheme will be impracticable —as if it were impossible to devise a card to be swiped through a perfectly straightforward piece of equipment such as is to be found on every third door in our high streets—are unnecessarily pessimistic.
The capital costs will simply not have to be borne by the clubs, and the revenue cost—a maximum of £3·30 per season for all the club's games and for games at any other ground—could be reduced to virtually nil. We have nothing to fear from the technology. I emphasise what. I said at the beginning. Those of us who have most loyally supported my hon. Friend the Minister throughout the proceedings on the Bill take it for granted that the technology will be thoroughly tested in the circumstances that have been described, somewhat poetically, by my hon. Friends, before the scheme is implemented.

Mr. Lester: Surely the desire to test the technology has arisen because of what happened at Hillsborough. We are waiting for Lord Justice Taylor's report because we want to be satisfied—in spite of my hon. Friend's faith in our developing a technology which has never been developed before—that the technology will not give rise to further disasters. I do not share my hon. Friend's complacency and I remain convinced that we need to test the equipment, for all the reasons that we have advanced.

Mr. Norris: I merely register the fact that I do not share my hon. Friend's view. I see no reason why the technology should not help us considerably in our attempts to prevent the kind of scenes that we saw at Hillsborough recurring. It is the object of every one of us who supports the scheme to provide not only the equipment but the legislative framework to avoid incidents such as that at Hillsborough.

Mr. Moynihan: The Government have always accepted that the technology to be used in the national membership scheme should be properly tested before the scheme can begin. When we discussed the subject in Committee, I said:
testing the technology for the scheme would be part of the preparations for implementation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 July 1989, c. 503.]
I also repeated, as I have done many times, that we shall not go ahead with implementation until we are satisfied that the technology is workable, efficient and safe. It is no more in the interests of the Government than in the interests of anyone else for to scheme to be set up before those conditions are satisfied.
I listened with interest to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). We are talking about technologies that have not yet been chosen and which are very different from each other. If the membership authority chooses a technology that does not require large capital investment in machinery, the testing period will be very different from that for an alternative technology that the authority may


recommend. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest spoke of a different technology. His point does not reflect the need to go down the line to check whether each card carried by 600,000 members is valid. On the contrary —some hon. Members have seen technologies allowing the club access, on the day before or the morning of the match, to a referral file of invalid cards.
As soon as that file arrives at the club, the readers, which are regularly updated with the referral files, are taken to the turnstiles and can be placed on them. As a scheme member enters, the reader shows whether his card is valid or invalid. That is not dissimilar from the operation at Luton Town or at Derby County. Those clubs have few difficulties with invalid or faulty cards. Oxford United and Reading have similar systems. If a member's card causes a red light to go on at the turnstiles at Reading because he is on the referral file, he is not allowed in. That fan must go to the club office, where an inquiry is made. The FMA believes that it is better to allow people in to avoid turning someone round in a turnstile. If people are allowed in, it is better for stewards to handle them inside grounds. That is what happens at Oxford United.
At Tottenham Hotspur similar technology with a referral file permits a supervisor in addition to the gate man to respond to a red light. If the red light comes on, a code number is indicated to the supervisor, thus giving him the reason for the red light. The way in which clubs deal with such situations depends on what is happening outside the turnstile.
The appropriate technology requires appropriate testing. As Luton Town and other clubs have found, that testing can be carried out on one or two Saturdays. The scheme is not relevant to this debate. We are considering the technology that must be tested. That testing may take place on two consecutive Saturdays next year, after the FMA has considered whether it wants two or three systems to be tested. The FMA might hypothetically decide on a short list of three and then to go to Luton Town. It may remove the equipment from three turnstiles to test the technology alongside the present system in Luton. Luton Town may assist that, and that may require testing lasting one week, two weeks or three months. When we consider the six short-listed systems, I believe the testing can be carried out efficiently and speedily. We will not be satisfied with the relevant technology until that testing has been carried out. The Government will not approve the system until we are satisfied that the technology is workable, efficient and safe.
It is utter nonsense for the Evening Standard to suggest today that
Mr. Moynihan was instead telling the Commons this afternoon that there will now be a trial scheme
involving one club from each of the four divisions. On occasions, we have problems in the House with hon. Members unwittingly misleading the House. To mislead the public so clearly is completely wrong. It is not right that there must be a delay in the implementation of the scheme from the early months of next season for adequate testing of the technology to take place. It is clear that more than 90 clubs around the country have membership schemes at the moment which they have implemented with

adequate testing without the need to wait for three seasons of testing, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and his colleagues would like.

Mr. Pendry: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has said that the Football League and the Football Association are considering the tenders from the computer firms and have a short list of six. If at the end of the day they find that not one of the six is adequate, what will the Minister do?

Mr. Moynihan: The whole purpose of an invitation to tender is to allow the companies which are aware of the tender documentation and of the nature of the scheme to bid against one another. No doubt they will want to learn the areas in which the working group is dissatisfied with the particular schemes that have been proposed and no doubt the companies will place a cost on remedying that. The FMA will have to bear that cost.
It is clear that six companies have been shortlisted from more than 100. The experts in the FA and the Football League are considering in detail the implementation of a comprehensive national scheme at no cost to the clubs. It is clear that there will be no cost and perhaps even income generation to the clubs through the charge on their members or through commercial opportunities with local companies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said, the maximum cost last summer with the highest level of technology then available was £3·30 per annum per member, with no cost to the club. The cost does not take into account the development of any commercial opportunities.
7.15 pm
There are 90 membership schemes in the Football League at the moment. All those clubs have considered commercial opportunities, and some have been highly successful. If the clubs have, as we anticipate, the right to develop commercial relations with the companies that already sponsor their membership schemes, even if they do nothing, the maximum cost estimated last season was £3·30 a head. However, if they maximise the range of commercial opportunities, as clubs up and down the country have done already with their partial membership schemes, there would not be a cost, and those clubs may have an income generator. If the right hon. Member for Small Heath believes that those clubs should not take those opportunities, he is denying them the right to earn money to invest in facilities, get better players, create closer relations with their members and break once and for all the link between football hooligans and true football supporters.

Mr. Boyes: I had thought that the Minister would have learned from his experiences in Hartlepool. I invited him there and he will remember that the buildings at the club are wooden structures. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has referred to security. I do not believe that we will get everything for free. However, where will the money come from to make the buildings secure? The Minister is living in cloud cuckoo land if he believes that builders in Hartlepool will do all that work for nothing.

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman has made two very important points. I hoped that I had answered to the satisfaction of the House his point on the cost and


potential income generation of the national membership scheme. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised another very important point—the financing of improvements to grounds which may arise as a result of the Football Licensing Authority's interest in updating facilities to ensure that they are safe.
Like all other forms of entertainment in this country, whether at a cinema, the Albert hall or any sporting ground, football clubs as private sector businesses must find the costs to ensure that their facilities are safe. There is no difference between a licence condition imposed on a cinema and that imposed on a football club. That must be right. If a football club, cinema or any other place of entertainment or business involved in the leisure industry cannot afford to make its premises safe, it should not be open to the public for any purpose. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) may boo and hiss from a sedentary position. However, it is common ground, at least among Conservative Members, that safety must come first. If premises are unsafe, I hope that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw would agree that they should not be open to the paying public.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Meale: Surely the Minister is misguided in trying to pursue this line of argument about safety. The membership card will not ensure safety. If £50,000 or £100,000 is required to house the machinery to operate the system, that will affect the number of players and coaches for clubs like Mansfield in my constituency. Such a sum might buy twice as many players and coaches for Hartlepool in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Wahington (Mr. Boyes). Hartlepool is currently 92nd in the league and it may go out of the Football League at the end of the season. How will the Minister encourage Hartlepool to invest the level of expenditure required to house the machines to operate the system? The membership cards have nothing to do with safety.

Mr. Moynihan: I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question and then I will happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).

Mr. Ashton: Do not give way.

Mr. Moynihan: I have almost exclusively given way to the Opposition. Some of my hon. Friends would like to intervene in the debate.
Safety is at the heart of the Bill and the Football Licensing Authority's work. I would happily give the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Bill to show how vital it is. All hon. Members recognise the need for the Football Licensing Authority, in the light of the appalling footballing disasters that have taken place in recent years, and the necessity to make sure that we have safe facilities. That will be a primary function of the Football Licensing Authority, which is absolutely central to the legislation.
The hon. Gentleman may try not to compare coaches, players and the costs of football with the cost of safety, but he cannot avoid the fact that a company, management structure, or football club should regard all those factors as important aspects of their expenditure and put safety at the very top. A club would let down the interests of fee-paying spectators if it failed to put safety anywhere bar at the top and to pay for required improvements, just as a cinema must pay for improvements to meet fire and safety regulations.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in Committee, it was said several times that facilities could be given in the form of financial help from the Football Trust, which already gives millions of pounds for football ground improvement and safety each year? Does my hon. Friend agree that a case for a grant could easily be made by a club such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes)? In such circumstances, if a club improved its ground—obviously, it would—its application might be looked upon favourably.

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend's point is well made, and I am sure that it will be considered by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) As I have said several times, the Football Trust has done outstandingly good work in assisting with clubs' significant costs in safety improvements. The rest of the costs must be met from football.

Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that Luton Town football club's revenue has doubled in the past year because of the 32 companies that sponsor its membership card? Is he aware also that, only last week, the Luton bus corporation allowed anyone with a Luton Town member's card to travel at half price on any Saturday during the year?

Mr. Moynihan: Luton Town is exemplary in seeking out and developing the commercial opportunities that can be associated with its membership scheme, which is important but not exclusive to Luton town. Many clubs have followed that example. Luton Town is unique in that, having a 100 per cent. home-only scheme, it has managed to increase support from local people well beyond what it was before, to 20,000 members, and to close its books to further membership at present. It has increased income from commercial sponsors and substantially reduced the incidence of hooliganism. As the Bedfordshire police have made clear, hooliganism has not been displaced downtown. That has led to the community being a far safer place than it was three years ago.

Mr. Lester: I listened to the argument about choosing a scheme, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I want an assurance that, if a club chooses a scheme which involves some equipment, that equipment will be thoroughly tested in the winter. I do not know how one could simulate winter conditions in summer or spring. I experienced technological failure when equipment at Heathrow failed in deep frost and none of us could get off an aeroplane—they had to bring ladders to us. I do not share the confidence of some of my hon. Friends that this equipment will work perfectly in the depths of winter because it worked perfectly well in the spring. If a club chooses equipment which would react to weather conditions, will my hon. Friend assure the House that it will not be put into play until it has been tested in those conditions?

Mr. Moynihan: Of course I agree with the proposition that the technology will need to be tested on dark and wet evenings as well as sunny Saturday afternoons. I do not believe that that necessarily requires the testing to continue throughout what may be described as the winter, still less that it needs to be tested throughout a whole season. If the purpose is to make sure that it is tested in cold and wet conditions, I do not think that my hon. Friend needs to


wait a winter for that—many an autumn and spring fall neatly into that category. I give the undertaking that I have given on many occasions to my hon. Friend and other colleagues that testing will need to take place in different conditions and different locations.
However, once the FMA is satisfied that the appropriate technology is up and running, there is no doubt that having chosen it, all 92 clubs will have the opportunity to put it in place, and test it as they wish in the run-up before it goes live with the force of law. That is an important point to bear in mind. It will also reflect any change in turnstile arrangements that must be made in the off-season next summer, or any other recommendations on ground design made by the FMA or Lord Justice Taylor in his report—subject to the agreement of Parliament—prior to the beginning of next season, or possibly even sooner.
Testing the technology is not the same thing as phasing the implementation of the scheme. The Government and the FMA will have regard to the desirability of
a phased application of the scheme
as we are required to do by clause 6. However, we very much hope that phasing will not be necessary because of the serious risk that hooligans banned from clubs inside the scheme would simply transfer their attention to clubs outside. A hooligan convicted of an offence at one Football League club would be free to attend matches at another. That could have particularly serious implications if clubs outside the scheme could not be brought in for a period such as three years.
It will be for the Football Membership Authority to come up with a realistic programme for testing the technology for its scheme. I do not think that it is helpful now to try to reach definitive conclusions about what that timetable should be. Hon. Members have spoken about the variety of technology. The House will accept that it is wrong to be too definite about an actual testing programme and that it would not fulfil the objective that an appropriate test would need to be made. That might be a short testing period, and it might require a longer testing period. It is for the Football Membership Authority to come forward with a realistic programme in the light of the appropiate technologies it wishes to have tested.
It would not be helpful to accept the amendment about specific requirements for thorough testing for certain periods. Such a provision would also create a minefield of legal dispute. Would "thorough" mean testing at every club and in all possible weather conditions, or something less? There is a danger that an amendment of this kind could give rise to endless unhelpful and expensive disputes involving the FMA, the Secretary of State and individual clubs. That would be in no one's interests.
I recognise that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members wish to be certain that the technology will be tested properly, but I hope that they will accept that the FMA has the greatest possible incentive to ensure that the technology will work properly before the scheme begins. After all, it will have responsibility for its operation. The Government want the scheme to be tested before it is introduced. The FMA will want it to be tested. It is in both our interests that it should be tested. We do not need to amend the Bill in a way that could give rise to any number of arguments about interpretation, to ensure that the

adequate testing that my hon. Friends wish to achieve will be carried out. Therefore, I invite my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister's speech was one of the most spurious that I have heard on the Bill. When we started on this Bill, which is running into more and more trouble, the Minister said that the scheme would be in operation this season, and probably last season. We do not have it this year and we will not have it next year—at any rate, not at the start of next season—and I honestly do not think that we will have it until 1991. The Minister tried to destroy a sensible amendment. He spoke as though the process would be held up by 92 clubs, whereas the amendment could not have been more reasonably drafted even by myself. It says that the Secretary of State and the Football Membership Authority—nobody else—have to be satisfied about the technology. The Minister is now turning down that sensible proposition.
What does the Minister base his argument on? We heard a lot of nonsense about how important it is that football clubs should accept the need for safety. What on earth does he think that the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 is all about? The Minister tried to make a party point at the expense of the Opposition. He knows that I was the Minister in the Labour Government who placed the Safety of Sports Grounds Act on the statute book. Lord Justice Taylor is considering whether the implementation of that Act at Hillsborough and Sheffield council's supervision of that ground were adequate. We wait to hear what Lord Justice Taylor has to say about that. There is a legal obligation on all football clubs to put safety first, and local authorities are obliged to seek to ensure that they do.
7.30 pm
The Government are not providing a penny for this scheme, but the Labour Government who placed the Safety of Sports Grounds Act on the statute book arranged that the pools promoters, "Spot the Ball" and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would provide money to finance the scheme. It has been a godsend to football.
The Minister referred to marketing opportunities. What he is saying is that football supporters should agree to having masses of junk mail pushed through their letter boxes every day of the year. He knows perfectly well that the Data Protection Act 1988 provides that on each application form there is to be a square where each member can put a cross, which will mean that he does not want his name and address to be spelt out. Those of us who were members of the Committee that considered the Data Protection Bill were anxious to protect people's privacy.
The National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs has a membership of 100,000. The Football Supporters Association has 10,000 paid-up members who can vote and 20,000 associates who do not have a vote. We were not talking earlier about trivial numbers. The Football Supporters Association, the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, all sensible people who are interested in football, most of the members of the press who are interested in civil liberties and certainly the Opposition will advise every member who applies to join to put an "x" in that square so that they are not flooded with calls from secondhand car salesmen, double glazing window merchants and all the other messengers of doom and gloom who call at our houses if our names and addresses are sold to raise money.
If football supporters exercise their civil rights by saying, "I do not want this junk mail pushed through my letter box and people calling at my home to sell me bogus insurance and other things, so I do not wish my name to be disclosed"—and if they have any sense they will do that —there is no way in which the scheme can be introduced at a cost of £10 for three years.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: No, I do not intend to give way. We have had enough talk of Luton Town today. The hon. Gentleman will have to be quiet. Luton Town, I am sorry to say, is relegated to the second division for the purposes of this debate.
For old-age pensioners, £10 is a lot of money. An old-age pensioner may only go to a football match at Christmas. Pensioners can least afford £10, even though it is for three years. [Interruption.] I know how much a week that is, but the £10 is not paid weekly. It is paid in one go, and that is on top of the entrance fee. For an old-age pensioner who goes to a football match only at Christmas, it will not be £10; it will be £15, which is quite a lot of money.
I never thought that I would hear the Minister say that there should be a supervisor at each turnstile. He commended Tottenham. Most football clubs cannot afford to have supervisors at turnstiles.

Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. I gave a range of examples of how different clubs handle their partial membership schemes. They vary considerably. I never said that all were the kind of schemes that we wanted—or even that any one of them was. None of them is, because we are going for a national, not a partial, membership scheme.

Mr. Howell: I am glad that the Minister said that; he has clarified the fact that this is a Government scheme. It is the Government, not the Football Membership Authority, who will decide.

Mr. Moynihan: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. The Bill provides the framework for a national membership scheme, which the Government wish to see. The precise details of the scheme will be brought before the House by the Secretary of State after it has been finalised by the Football Membership Authority.

Mr. Howell: I hear what the Minister says, but I do not have time to go into all the points.
One of the impracticalities of the scheme is that anyone who has registered can attend any ground in the country. Therefore, supporters of 91 clubs could turn up at Hartlepool United or, more likely, at Tottenham or Arsenal. How on earth will that club know where to put the supporters of those 91 clubs when it is playing, for instance, Manchester United? The "smart card" that the Minister spoke about earlier without naming it will say which part of the ground the supporters are to go to. That membership card, which will admit the football supporter into any of 92 clubs, will create horrendous difficulties for all the clubs concerned.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has made out an overwhelming case for trying out the scheme for

half a season, or for a full season in any weather. I am sorry that the Minister has been unable to respond to his very reasonable case, which we support.

Mr. Lester: I am in a great dilemma, knowing that we want to get in some important debates before 9 pm and that a Division would take up time. I agree that, until we know what scheme the FMA comes forward with, we cannot recommend a test, but I leave my hon. Friend the Minister with a firm warning from those of us who watch these matters with great care that we shall need to be satisfied that any future scheme is thoroughly tested and safe.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP SCHEME: CONTENTS AND PENALTIES

Miss Hoey: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 4, line 44, at end insert—
'(iii) women.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it wll be convenient to discuss amendment No. 52, in page 4, line 44 at end insert—
'(iii) any persons in receipt of the National Insurance old age pension or disability allowance.'.

Miss Hoey: I am disappointed that the first piece of legislation on whose Committee I served since being elected is so punitive and that it is a posturing measure designed purely to satisfy the Prime Minister's wish to be seen to be doing something about the problem of football hooliganism. I am disappointed also that the Minister, who sat through hours of Committee debate, has chosen to listen to so little that was said by hon. Members on both sides.
These amendments highlight the real difference between the Opposition and the Government over how to solve the problem of the thugs and hooligans who associate themselves with football. The crux is that Opposition Members start from the premise that we believe that 99·7 per cent. of people who watch are decent supporters whom we want to encourage. Conservative Members seem to believe that anyone who wants to go along and watch a match is a potential thug. Unfortunately, that has led the Minister and the Government to try to penalise all foot ball supporters instead of to target the minority of whom we would all wish to rid football here and abroad.
We believe that there is room for exemptions in the Bill. We oppose the whole part of part I, but unless Conservative Members take note of the views of those who have sent in petitions and of the people in the football world, they will go along meekly and vote with the Government tonight.
We recognise that the Bill is likely to become law, but we want exemptions in it, the most obvious of which seem to be women. I failed to get answers to some obvious questions in Committee. For instance, why does the Minister link women with football hooliganism. What statistics can he show to prove how many women have been arrested at or outside football matches, or charged or found guilty? We know from the debate in House of Lords


that there are no statistics to prove that any significant number of women have been involved in any sort of hooliganism——

Mr. Denis Howell: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend to make her valid point. We have done quite a lot of research in my office and found that, in the past two years, two women have offended. One of them was telling a club official in rather strong unwomanly language what she thought of him; the other was having a row outside the ground with her husband and was arrested as a result. Neither comes into the category of hooliganism.

Miss Hoey: My right hon. Friend has demonstrated my point.
Women attend football matches. There is no doubt that football is very much a male domain, but the women who attend go not only with the husbands or boy friends but because they enjoy football and want to support their local clubs and soak up the atmosphere.
We all know that not enough women attend football matches. The idea that women used to attend and must be attracted back to football, having been driven away by hooliganism, is untrue—women have never attended in great numbers. So we are trying to encourage more women to come to watch football. They do not stay away, as the Minister thinks, because of violence or hooliganism. They stay away much more because facilities for women at the clubs are not up to standard. Women's toilets on the terraces are usually taken over by men. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not mind my pointing out that at Chelsea, the club that he supports, the toilet facilities for women are pretty appalling and are usually taken over by men.
The only thing that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said with which I agree is that the Football League and the Football Association have not yet moved into the 1990s. I and many of my hon. Friends share his criticisms.
It is disgraceful to link women with hooliganisam. I am especially worried that the casual supporter will be discouraged from attending football. Many men do not want to go, but their children do on the odd Saturday. If women were exempted, on a Saturday morning, say, when a son or daughter aged under 10 wanted to go to a match that afternoon—the Minister does not agree with his working party that accompanied children up to the age of 13 would be exempt—their father might be working or might not have an identity card, so it would be much more sensible if women were exempted and mothers could take their children to football matches. The Government are quite wrong about this.
I find it difficult to take seriously the idea—it was mentioned in Committee—that if women were exempt, men would dress up as women——

Mr. John Carlisle: rose——

Miss Hoey: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman on this point. As I said in Committee, some Conservative Members seem obsessed with men dressing up as women, but it is not a serious argument against exempting women.
I am sure that the Minister will argue for universality and say that the scheme must apply to everyone, so as to break

the link between the genuine supporter and the hooligan. But we believe that the genuine thug should be targeted. The Minister has already exempted some people from identity cards—those with disabilities; girls under the age of 10—and there is no logical reason why women should all be labelled potential thugs who need an identity card.
During the past year and a half, the Minister has spent a great deal of time on this Bill, pushed, as we know, by the Prime Minister. I still hope that at some stage he will accept what we have been saying throughout—that we think that he genuinely does not believe that the scheme will work. He, as Minister for Sport, cannot really want to implement this measure but he has to because he has to obey another women who heads the Government.
If the Minister cared about football, about improving our national game, then instead of spending all this time trying to get legislation through which everyone, except some Conservative Members, says will not work, he could have been laying down guidelines to clubs about facilities. Those could have included guidance on what clubs must do to come up to standard. He should have insisted on clubs getting rid of some of the ridiculous men-only board rooms that exist in some clubs. He should have been looking at the money that the Government take from football, and finding out whether it might be possible for some of it to be put back into the game.
The Minister should have been making sure that magistrates were told that the fines and sentences they are handing out to the thugs are ludicrous and pathetic. He should have been making sure that magistrates impose sentences that will deter and not just allow the thugs to get off lightly. He should have instructed the FA to reopen its English supporters travel club, instead of sitting back and saying that he does not want supporters to go abroad and that he wants England to cancel its matches. How dare the Minister say that? It is playing into the hands of the thugs to ask England not to play its matches and even to suggest that, if England qualifies for the World Cup, it should not go.
The Minister should have insisted that the FA takes account of its supporters, involves them when they are travelling abroad and takes responsibility for them, thus isolating the small number of thugs who travel abroad. The Minister should have talked to supporters' clubs and listened to what they were saying. As hon. Members have said, it is the supporter who goes week in and week out, cold nights and all, who knows what is going at the club and how to isolate the thugs. Such supporters need help to do that, and the Minister should have listened to the 500,000 supporters who signed the petition.
Some Conservative Members—although not the Minister—have implied that these signatures collected at football grounds were glibly given by people who did not know what they were signing. How dare Conservative Members suggest that young people who play football or elderly people who have taken the trouble to stop and read the petition and sign it do not know what they are signing and do not know what the Government are doing?
The Minister and the Government will receive a big shock over this issue. They will railroad the Bill through, but in many marginal Tory seats, football supporters, in addition to all the other things, will make a difference at the next general election. Football supporters will not forget what the Government have done to them and to their game.
A Government led by a woman say that women cause problems at football matches and are potential thugs. My hon. Friends will be speaking about the amendment in terms of pensioners. I urge every Conservative Member to search his conscience. If they cannot vote for the amendment, I ask them at least to abstain. I have outlined the things that the Minister should have been doing in th last two years. They are the things that Labour will do when we are in office.

Mr. John Carlisle: As the Member described by the Sunday Mirror the other day as one of the most chauvinist Members on the Conservative side because of my description of women as all natural bitches, I say immediately and unreservedly to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) that I would not make that criticism of her. She has once again entertained the House with a charming speech, just as she did in Committee. The plea that she puts forward is similar in content and argument to the one that she advanced in Committee. Regrettably, her arguments are spurious and tend to reduce this important Bill to the level of ribaldry and dissent among the hon. Lady's own sex.
I do not think that the hon. Lady speaks for as many women as she claims to. She and her right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell) seek to deny women the benefits of the membership scheme which will be available to them if they choose to join. Of course the Bill does not seek to force anybody to the join the scheme. If the amendment were accepted, women would not be able to enjoy the many benefits of the scheme which will be available to others. Many women who support the Opposition may ask Opposition Members how they can justify denying the scheme's many benefits to women.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath said that he would advise the Football League, the Football Association and the Football Supporters Association not to take any of the commercial benefits that the scheme offers, and that would deny those benefits to women. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the information that the membership of the Football Supporters Association has risen from nil to 15,000 in about an hour.
It would be appalling if the commercial opportunities which will undoubtedly be available to clubs are denied them because of the pig-headedness and stupidity of the right hon. Member for Small Heath, who says that, because he does not like the scheme, no one should join it and enjoy its commercial benefits. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a law-abiding citizen. He has been in opposition long enough in this Parliament and in others to know that, when legislation is in place, best use should be made of it. The right hon. Gentleman should not advise people to try to ignore the scheme.
Those of us who served on the Committee have heard before the arguments of the hon. Member for Vauxhall. She must understand that membership of the scheme will bring not only commercial benefit. The greatest benefit of all is that at last football will be a clean and safe game to go to. That in itself will benefit women perhaps more than any other section of society, apart from young children. Many clubs operating the membership scheme will be able to offer their members not only commercial advantage, but advantages such as priority in application for tickets for important matches.
I have no doubt that the club supported by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will be fighting for honours towards the end of the season and may reach the Football Association cup final. In that case, if the membership scheme were in operation, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would certainly appreciate it because some people who were members could be shown by the computer to have been to, let us say, 20 games, and that would enable them to have priority in getting cup final tickets. Under this amendment, women would not be able to benefit in that way. They would not be able to make any sort of application and would not qualify for the benefits of priority for tickets.

Mr. Randall: How will making it compulsory for women to become members of the scheme make the game safer?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member was a notable member of the Committee.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Middle stump.

8 pm

Mr. Carlisle: Not middle stump, I say to my athletic opponent. The more people who are in the scheme and enjoy it, the better it will be for everybody. The more people who join a scheme or a club, the greater the benefit to the club in terms, for example, of commercial advantage. However, if the members of a large section of the population are denied the opportunity to become members of the club, which would be the result of the amendment, the scheme would not work as well as it would if they were members.
I have not been privileged to hear many of the speeches made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, except in Committee, but no doubt she is a great champion of equal rights for women, and would make speeches in favour of equal taxation, equal opportunities of employment and equal opportunities to become Members of Parliament.

Mr. Tony Banks: We all support equal opportunities.

Mr. Carlisle: I have no doubt that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), would all speak in favour of equality for women. However, the hon. Lady wants women to be treated specially in this system. She does not want women to be as the others, because they are women and should be treated differently. Conservative Members find that difficult to understand.
The hon. Lady dismissed, rather unfairly, the distinct possibility that men would dress up as women to go into games. She is not in the real world. We are not talking about transvestite bars in Berlin or certain television programmes. We are talking about a genuine scheme which has been proposed by the Government, and which many hundreds, if not thousands, of people will find different ways to get round. In Committee, the Opposition made this point time and again. It is not without some fear and trepidation that I believe that, should the amendment be accepted, the spirit engendered that night in Newport, when 150 supporters went to the local Oxfam shop to buy women's clothes to get into the game, would be seen again.
Labour Members know full well that abuse takes place in all walks of life. They have seen people limping into places of entertainment in front of a crowd on the basis that there is something wrong with them. They have seen


people abusing the orange card scheme for the disabled. If too many exemptions are allowed, we shall probably find thousands upon thousands of limping men dressed in women's clothes going into football matches. That could be a serious problem, and the House should face it. It has already happened; if it had not, the thought would not have entered my head or that of any hon. Member.
If the hon. Member for Vauxhall wants to be taken seriously and to have her argument considered seriously both by those supporting and by those opposing the Bill, she should not put on a pedestal a certain sector of the community. Once the scheme is up and running, I believe that women will be as anxious as men to join it. If the amendment were passed, the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends would be denying women the benefits of membership, and for that she would not be thanked.

Mr. Pendry: It is a pity that the speech so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) should have been followed by such a speech from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). This is a serious debate about a serious matter. I agree with my hon. Friend. If women have no history of hooliganism in football grounds, the same can be said of old-age pensioners. It is a disappointment to them, as it is to Labour Members, that, despite our efforts in Committee to persuade the Minister to move along this line and adopt a common-sense approach, he has not seen fit to exempt women or old-age pensioners.
I know that I risk being struck off the Christmas card list of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) when I say that I actually agree with something said by the hon. Member for Luton, North in Committee. He said:
Pensioners are among the most active and loyal of supporters."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 13 July 1989, c. 384.]
The hon. Gentleman spoke with forked tongue tonight, although I agreed with what he said then. This legislation will alienate those very people. Therefore, I was surprised by what he said tonight because I thought that, having said that in Committee, he would support these amendments.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) made a telling comment. He put my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) right when my right hon. Friend said that there was no evidence of hooliganism among old-age pensioners. He said that, during the whole of last year, there had been three incidents involving people over 65 years of age. The first was in Norwich, when a man was prosecuted for illegally selling hot dogs; the second was near the Chelsea football ground, where a pensioner attempted to steal a car; the third, when no charges were brought, occurred at Southampton, where the police arrested a person who was pretending to be Father Christmas.

Mr. Meale: In the searches done about this season, the only case of a pensioner being in trouble with the police at football grounds is that concerning the ex-chairman of Southend United, who has been charged with the misuse of lottery funds.

Mr. Pendry: My hon. Friend is saying what he said in Standing Committee, which is that the scale of the

problem is negligible. It is wrong for the Government not to recognise that women and old-age pensioners have nothing to do with the hooligan problem, which we all deplore. The hooligans who attach themselves to our national game do not include women and old-age pensioners. The Government should have been big enough to show that they recognise the force of our arguments.
The millions of pensioners who regularly attend football matches find it difficult enough to go through the existing turnstiles without having to negotiate computerised equipment. The continuing debate and indecision about the nature of the equipment to be installed will hardly reassure them. The honest belief of many involved in the debate is that, due to the inevitable rejection of cards or computer breakdowns, congestion, impatience and rushing will be the outcome of the scheme, which will prove a further discouragement to pensioners. It is a pity that the Government did not wait for the final Taylor report before the scheme was thrust on women and old-age pensioners—vulnerable sections of our society who are far more sinned against than sinning.
Many of the long-standing and loyal spectators for whom standing on the terraces of their local club has been a way of life are saying that they do not wish to take up the ID. I will give one or two examples. Jacky Watts, who may be known to my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, is a long-time supporter of Aston Villa and remembers the days of Pongo Waring, Frank Broome and others. Jimmy Wallis is a 71-year-old lifelong fan of Blackburn Rovers, who remembers my uncle Aussie Campbell, and Bobbie Pryde and Ronnie Clayton. Old age pensioners at Derby such as Cyril Flinders and Mildred Price, who saw the great Raich Carter and Daily Duncans and Leon Luety, are considering not taking out ID cards. That is a sad indictment of the Government.
The Minister for Sport is unfortunately not here, but in Committee he said that too many exemptions would interrupt the essential smooth flow of spectators through the turnstiles and that alternative arrangements would present practical problems and loopholes for the hooligans to exploit. That is complete and utter nonsense.
I hope that the Minister here today will respond in a fresh and positive manner. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for the Environment, who was in his place for about five minutes, could not stay longer. Many of us had great hopes that he would reverse many of the nonsensical policies of his predecessor. If he had listened to the debate, the outcome might have been different from the one that I expect.
The scheme will mean that spectators will be interrupted as they pass through the turnstiles and there is no reason for old age pensioners and women to be part of it. I endorse the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall that women almost never incite or become involved in violence or obscene or threatening behaviour at football matches. The same is true of old-age pensioners. I endorse my hon. Friend's comment that it is not just a matter of bringing back families to support the game—we, the Government and the football world must unite in creating a climate which will encourage families to come to the sport for the first time. There must be an atmosphere that women find acceptable. They should not be penalised by the Bill. I hope that the Government will recognise, even at this late hour, that the thrust and force of our arguments is compelling and that they will accept the amendments.

Mr. David Evans: I wish to bring the debate back to the heart of the Bill, which is the separation of football fans from football hooligans. Football has lost half its supporters in the past 25 years, and the number of professionals playing the game is half what it was those years ago. Some of the lost supporters are women and old-age pensioners, and it is those very people whom the Bill seeks to protect.
We have had hooliganism, violence and criminal activity within the game for far too long. In effect, the Bill is saying to women and old-age pensioners who supported or still support the game, "We need you to continue to come to matches and support the game." Unfortunately, with more police, more dogs, more horses and more closed-circuit television, the very people who are the subject of the debate have been made aware of the problems facing the game and have stopped attending matches. That is a fact. Supporters have left the game in droves and it is not a matter of luring them back. Hundreds of thousands have left the game, yet the Football Association and the Football League have persistently, together with Opposition Members unfortunately, failed to recognise that the game is in deep decline.

Mr. Ashton: Attendances at cinemas and cricket matches have also declined enormously. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that hooliganism at the cinema has kept people away? Television has had its effect, along with unemployment, do-it-yourself, the ownership of cars and other interests. All or most attendances at leisure activities have declined over the past 20 or 30 years.

Mr. Evans: That is not true. Attendances at motor racing meetings have increased by 300 or 400 per cent. Attendances at rugby matches have similarly increased. The same can be said of attendances at rugby league matches and horse racing. It is at football matches—the national game—that attendances have declined dramatically. Opposition Members might tell me that over the past two or three years attendances at football matches have increased, but a graph that covers the past 25 years shows that over that period attendances have just about halved. It is that problem that the Bill addresses.
We are about to see a revolution in football. Everybody will, in effect, belong to the same club, and the benefits accruing from the card will be enormous. For example, the Luton bus company has offered half-price fares on any Saturday to members of Luton football club. It is not inconceivable that in future every football fan will be able to travel to his match at half price. That is already part of the Luton scheme.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend inform the House of the many commercial benefits that are being offered in the form of discounts at local shops because of the Luton scheme? Will he refute the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who suggested that the only commercial "advantage" would be junk mail? Other benefits exist and the scheme is working extremely well at Luton.

Mr. Evans: Indeed it is. My hon. Friend is right. The House should know that 32 companies have lent themselves to the Luton scheme. They have supported the club and offered discounts on a large range of products. Of

the 20,000 who have signed up at Luton, those who have stated that they do not want to receive a 7 per cent. discount on a motor car have not enjoyed the advantage of that offer. However, from next Saturday, every Luton member will be able to travel to his match at half price. That is a fact.
It is ludicrous to say that women should not be allowed to take advantage of such an offer. Are Opposition Members telling me that old-age pensioners should have to pay the full fare when men who are of working age are charged half fare? What a ludicrous and ridiculous proposition.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in most Labour-controlled authorities old-age pensioners enjoy free travel?

Mr. Evans: That may be so, but they do not enjoy free travel on British Rail. They will enjoy that advantage under the scheme. In my opinion, anyone who is a member of the Football Membership Authority will be able to go on holiday at half price. There will be no end to the advantages that will come from this wonderful scheme. I do not wish to see old-age pensioners being excluded from half-price tickets on British Airways. That would not be right. I advise Opposition Members to withdraw their ridiculous amendment before they make themselves look ridiculous.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: At the outset of his remarks, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said that he would endeavour to get to the heart of the Bill. I suppose that he made a valiant effort, but I regret that he was not very successful. The heart of the Bill is a compulsory membership scheme, and it is on that issue that the Minister and the rest of the Government have thus far been unable to advance compelling and convincing arguments. Why should there be universality for a football membership scheme when for some extraordinary reason, they eschew that approach on family income supplement, for example?
In a substantial sense, this is a matter of civil liberty. It has always been lawful for any person to go to a football match, but after the scheme is instituted it will be necessary to be a member—in effect, to have a licence—before taking part in an activity which hitherto has been entirely lawful without any licence or membership. The Government justify their proposals by saying that there are people who frequent football matches who behave in a fashion that is unacceptable to all of us in this place and to 99·7 per cent. of those who attend football matches.
The justification for removing a freedom is the benefit that it is said will accrue on the basis, so it is hoped and argued, that hooliganism will be reduced or even eliminated. If the purpose of the scheme is as the Government say, and if it is accepted that its essence is to take away a measure of freedom, it can be justified only in relation to the group of people among whom the hooligans can be found. Those groups certainly do not appear to include old-age pensioners—unless masquerading as Santa Claus is somehow of such deep significance that it may imperil the Government's proposals. The statistics show that women and old-age pensioners do not account for a large number of football hooligans.
The question is whether an activity that is currently lawful and in which one can freely participate should be the subject of regulation. Before the Government are


entitled to extend regulation in a universal way, they should satisfy the House that such a restriction is justified in respect of each of the categories concerned. Thus far, the Minister has been unable to give such proof. I suspect that he will be unable to do so even when these proceedings are completed. For that reason, I support the Opposition amendments.

Mr. Orme: I refer first to the benefits that the identity scheme will allegedly bring to football supporters. I am much in favour voluntary membership schemes. About 50 per cent. of Manchester United's attendance of 46,000 people are club members who enjoy certain benefits that could be developed. It does not require compulsory ID cards to enjoy those benefits. We want to see not a narrowing of the supporters' base, as will happen if the Government insist on women and pensioners registering as members, but a broadening of it. We know the source of the hooligan element—we see them on our television screens and when arrests are made. We want to see more women and pensioners at football matches, together with the development of family enclosures.
The attendance by women at football matches is a new phenomenon. Years ago, women did not attend matches, but after watching it on television, many of them have developed an interest in the game. Many also want to take their children, using the family enclosures. I should have thought that the Minister would want to exclude family enclosures, which are supervised, from the provisions of the Bill.
I accept many of the criticisms made of football grounds, some of which are a disgrace. Several of the best grounds in the country still do not provide adequate catering or toilet facilities. We should be aiming at improving the facilities at many of our stadiums. Many of them are also to be found in inner cities, where parking facilities are inadequate and where crowd control is difficult. Hillsborough is a classic example of a ground that is surrounded by residential housing and small roads.
We want to see the development of new stadiums and of better facilities. Perhaps the pattern set by American football could be followed, whereby entertainment is provided over a period of several hours and not for just 90 minutes. Many supporters agree that it is often a case of entering the ground just a few minutes before the game begins and leaving it as soon as the match finishes. That happens because the spectator is offered nothing more. In some cases, those attending are not even provided with cover from the rain.
We should be addressing ourselves to solving such problems, not to a compulsory identity card scheme that will cause a reduction in attendances by the very kind of people whom we want to see at matches. Amendment No. 51, covering women, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), and amendment No. 52, concerning pensioners, point the way forward. If the Minister really wants to see the game developing along the right lines, he should accept those amendments, which would encourage higher attendances among the right people.
We must also link genuine supporters in the fight against hooliganism. Supporters' clubs are for the first time receiving proper recognition, though they still have no power in the boardroom or influence over the provision

of club facilities. A large proportion of football hooliganism will be defeated not by the police alone but by ordinary supporters saying, "We have had enough of this. We will no longer tolerate hooliganism." Such people need encouragement. I say again to the Minister that the Government's scheme will drive away many of the people —yes, including younger people—of the kind that we want to be associated with the fight against hooliganism.
Everyone knows that the Bill will not work. The clubs will be forced by law to implement its provisions, but they will do so in a half-hearted manner. That is not the way to defeat hooliganism, and that is what our argument is about.

Mr. Pike: The Opposition's amendments are eminently sensible and, if the Bill is to be forced through, they commend themselves to the House. They are so logical and positive that the Government should have been prepared to respond positively to them. The reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) for not supporting the amendments were so outrageous that, had I not been present in the Chamber to hear them, I would not have believed it possible that someone could make such comments. If I had picked up a newspaper tomorrow and read of them, I would have thought that the reporter had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The statistics and the facts prove that, if the Government persist with their Bill, women and old-age pensioners should be exempted, because clearly they are not responsible for the problems that exist. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) referred to falling attendances at football matches. It is utter nonsense to suggest that hooliganism is the biggest contributory factor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) gave several valid seasons for that trend.
In arguing his case, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield cited the one ground where a closed membership scheme covering 20,000 supporters is in operation. He should consider the attendance at his local football club by comparison with 20 years ago. If that membership scheme is so successful, why is it that that club experiences attendances which are among the lowest in the first division? Over the past couple of years, Luton has enjoyed reasonable success, despite struggling against relegation. The year before last, it reached three cup finals, and it reached the Littlewoods cup final this year.

Mr. David Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman; I did not realise that he wanted to intervene on my speech.
May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that Luton Town's attendance figures last year rose by 21 per cent.—the fourth highest increase in the first division?

Mr. Pike: Last year's may have been the fourth highest percentage increase, but it certainly was not the fourth highest attendance figure. Attendances at matches in which my own team played—a fourth-division team—were, at one stage, only 1,000 or 2,000 lower than the Luton average.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Does my hon. Friend realise that Luton wishes to exclude away fans, even under the scheme? Clause 1(10) will allow that to happen. Why is that provision included in legislation for what is supposed to be a national scheme?

Mr. Pike: I shall come to that in a moment.
I do not believe for a moment that the Bill will solve the problem of attendances. It deals with the wrong problem, in the wrong way, and will be very damaging to football.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) asked about away supporters. I find it surprising that clubs that want to ban those spectators from their grounds are so anxious to allow their own supporters to attend their away matches. As a supporter of many years' standing, I believe that we must allow supporters from both sides to watch matches.
As I said earlier, the statistics and the facts show that exclusions can and should be made, even if the Government are stupid enough to persist with this nonsensical legislation.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) correctly identified the single aim which unites Members on both sides of the House. We are all trying to eliminate hooligans from football, and to separate them from the true supporters. The only argument is about how to do that.
If that is the hon. Gentleman's objective, however, he must surely recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has pointed out, that statistics clearly show that the hooligans are not women or pensioners. The principle of exempting certain categories of supporter is already enshrined in the Bill. Those categories include disabled people and children. If exceptions can be made and the Government have conceded that principle, I do not see why they should resist statistical evidence that two further groups do not pose any danger of hooliganism.
Trying to justify his rather peculiar stance, the hon. Gentleman went on to say that women and pensioners would, if excluded, merely be deprived of the multifarious benefits which would somehow flow from the scheme. That does not necessarily follow. Apart from anything else, there is nothing to stop women and pensioners from joining a scheme voluntarily, if minded to do so. Most supporters' clubs will operate the kind of scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, providing travel and purchasing advantages, for instance. The hon. Gentleman was really scraping the barrel in his attempt to justify his opposition to an amendment for which, in their quieter and more rational moments, hon. Members on both sides of the House would clearly concede that there is a strong case.
It is a fairly open secret that I am a Chelsea supporter. I have been one for many years, man and boy—but, as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will know, not yet woman. Chelsea football club used to be nicknamed "the Pensioners". Although some people claimed that the nickname referred to the way in which the team played, it had nothing to do with that; it derived from the club's close associations with the Royal Chelsea hospital. Anyone who attends a Chelsea match nowadays will still see the Chelsea pensioners sitting there.
It strikes me as ludicrous that, to gain access to the club, Chelsea pensioners will now have to join the scheme. Can the hon. Member for Luton, North imagine—even in his wildest moments—that members of the Inter-City Firm or the Head Hunters would dress themselves up in red greatcoats and peak caps and cover themselves in whiskers

and medals in an attempt to sneak into Chelsea football club? It is not as though Chelsea pensioners try to sneak in without being noticed.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has certainly put a new idea into the minds of the Inter-City football fans, which they may well follow up. He has, however, missed the point that the scheme will bring women and pensioners—particularly the Chelsea pensioners whom he has mentioned—the peace and quiet that we now enjoy at Luton. Stamford Bridge could also enjoy that peace and quiet, although it did not do so earlier this season. Supporters would be able to attend matches time and again in the certain knowledge that, because everyone present must be a member of the scheme, the game will be played in peace and they will not be beaten about the head on the way. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—who, to some extent, represents Chelsea football club in the House, and who knows the history of appalling violence in and around Stamford Bridge—not to support a scheme that will get rid of that violence once and for all.

Mr. Banks: Two points emerge from what the hon. Gentleman has just said. First, it should be pointed out that the club with which I could be said to have the closest political affiliation is West Ham, which is in my borough. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, while it is possible to change many things in this life—one's political party, one's religion and one's partner, for instance—a true football supporter will never change his allegiance to a football club. As one whose constituents include a vast number of West Ham supporters, I am prepared to stand up and say that I am still a Chelsea supporter, and will remain one.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's logic is faulty. The membership scheme will go ahead and pensioners and women can therefore continue to attend matches in complete confidence, because it was not they who created the problems in the past and they will certainly not be creating problems in the future. If the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the scheme will work to exclude hooligans, those categories can still attend in the full knowledge that the hooligans have been excluded, arid without themselves having to go through the inconvenience of participating in the scheme. They are not responsible for the trouble, and they should therefore be excluded. Conservative Members are reaching into the very depths of the barrel in their attempts to justify their opposition to these measured amendments.
After all the years in which Chelsea pensioners have been going to matches, dressed in such a fashion that there can be no misunderstanding about their identity and where they come from, it seems most unfair that at their advanced age—having served the country and fought in the first world war, with only a few twilight years left to enjoy the delights of Stamford Bridge and see Chelsea win the first division championship—they should now have to experience the inconvenience and humiliation of signing up for the membership scheme on the ground, I suppose, that they may be potential hooligans. What a way to treat such people. It is absurd, and I am surprised that even the hon. Member for Luton, North, who seems to spend so much time licking his lips at the thought of all those men dressed up as women in fishnet stockings and trying to sneak into the ground—no doubt he is now imagining


them wearing greatcoats over the fishnets—should make such comments. All I can say is that it says something about the way in which the Tory party thinks these days —it is all very odd, very kinky and entirely unreasonable.

Mr. Moynihan: Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 seek to make it compulsory for women, old-age pensioners and those in receipt of a disability allowance to be exempt from the scheme.
As my hon. Friends know, the matter of exemptions has been debated at great length in both Houses. Opposition Members pressed amendments seeking exemption for women and pensioners to a vote in Committee, after an extensive debate in which all today's arguments were rehearsed.
Let me once again make the Government's position on exemptions perfectly clear, as my hon. Friends have already done. We want to encourage membership, not seek exemptions to the scheme. It is not a case of identifying groups who will not cause trouble at matches and then exempting them from the requirement to join the scheme. Taken to its logical conclusion, if we began to remove groups who caused no problems, perhaps we would identify that all men with beards were not involved in hooliganism—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will allow me to develop my argument, I shall come to the practical reasons why disabled people are rightly exempted from the scheme.
If one exempted certain groups, we would begin to segregate great sections, who would still have to be identified as they entered the ground, and exempt them from membership. Ultimately, the only people who would not be exempted would be the hooligans. If we did that, we would retain precisely the situation that exists at the moment, in which club after club individually excludes known troublemakers. Clubs have no mechanism for excluding such people from another club up the road or any of the other 91 clubs. They are excluded only from their own club.
We will retain the situation in which 22 per cent. of people who go to football still say that they have been caught up in violence inside the ground. We would still have pitch invasions at the Crystal Palace-Birmingham City match and disorder inside the ground at the Manchester United-Manchester City game. We would still require 5,000 police to be on duty every Saturday afternoon to contain the problem and not to cure it. That would be the first natural result of applying that argument.
Secondly, there would be an important practical problem. Under a national membership scheme, all the groups that Opposition Members propose for exemption would need to prove that they fell into one or more of those categories. They would need to satisfy the turnstile operator, verbally or with a piece of paper, and would require testing at the turnstile.

Mr. Ashton: What about separate turnstiles?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman suggests separate turnstiles. Does he propose to double up on all the turnstiles? If he is suggesting that, he has answered the point for me. It would be utterly impractical to attempt to do that at football grounds. Not only would it be impractical, but I would argue that a national membership

scheme that required such checking would not satisfy the criteria that we require for speed of entry. That is an essential point on safety grounds—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) would do well to stop smiling and to listen. When he does, he will know that one system being considered is a technology which will require a card simply to be touched on the outside of the turnstile to allow entry, without taking up any additional time.
The moment people have to stop, hand over their card and talk to the turnstile operators, there will be a backlog of people causing the very problems that Opposition Members are determined will not occur in the technology that the FMA chooses. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) for saying that that is right, and I give way to him.

Mr. Ashton: I am sure that the Minister is not deliberately trying to mislead the House, but he forgets that people have to pay as well as put down their cards. They have to stop to pay and take their change. Many grounds already have separate turnstiles for old-age pensioners. Why can there not be a separate turnstile for pensioners and women where they do not have to put their cards down?

Mr. Moynihan: I have made it so crystal clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am amazed that he does not hear. On the practical side, I want to make sure that every member of the national membership scheme can gain entry to all 92 clubs as quickly and effectively as possible without any discussion with the turnstile operator. That would be a requirement of ensuring that no additional time is taken.
The effect of the membership scheme is the benefit to the member. The membership scheme effectively would segregate the true football supporter, who would benefit by going to football without being encumbered by the hooligan element which has done so much to disrupt the game, bring it into disrepute, add to the falling gates in the sport and cause English clubs to be banned from playing in European competition for so long. Only when, together with the football authorities, we can prove to the European authorities and to ourselves that we can put our own house in order—and a 100 per cent. membership scheme is vital in that context—and separate the true football supporter from the hooligan, will we be able to hold our heads high, as we should both nationally and internationally in our national game.
8.45 pm
Of course it is important to make sure that there is easy access to football grounds for disabled people. At present, it would be totally impractical for disabled people in wheelchairs to go through a turnstile-operated entry. There need to be separate entrances. We need to make sure that those people can enter safely without the practical difficulties that are envisaged if they have to place a card in a turnstile. For that reason, on balance, it was the view of the committee set up last year that disabled people should be exempt from the membership scheme.
It was also the view of that committee that we should encourage youngsters under 10 accompanied by members of the scheme to go to family enclosures and to encourage families to bring young children to specific areas of the ground, accompanied by members of the scheme. I understand that that view was shared by both sides of the House. I expect that many youngsters will want to join,


just as many youngsters now take up membership through the Young Lions, the Reds scheme at Charlton and dozens of other schemes to encourage youngsters to have a card. I hope that the clubs will realise the benefits of encouraging youngsters to join.

Mr. Tony Banks: Can I get something quite clear, so that I can speak to the Chelsea pensioners next time I visit Stamford Bridge? Is the Minister saying that the Chelsea pensioners, in their red frock coats, their medals, their whiskers, and their peaked caps, will have to be members of the scheme?

Mr. Moynihan: It may come as a staggering revelation to the hon. Gentleman, although the Bill has been published for well nigh 10 months now, that the answer is yes, just as hon. Members have a membership card to enter the House.
When the hon. Gentleman speaks to the Chelsea pensioners, he will be able to tell them about the benefits of membership that they will enjoy. He will be able to tell them of the benefits that they will have of going to Chelsea without the hooligan element disrupting the matches, causing so much trouble and bringing the game into disrepute. He will be able to tell them about the benefits that, one hopes, his club will reap with imagination from discount schemes and the many schemes that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has told us apply at Luton. In five years' time, they will be able to tell him that the appalling problem of hooliganism which racked football for the past three decades has gone. I am sure that he will enjoy that conversation, and I am certain that they will.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend point out to the House that Chelsea pensioners, being ex-service men, are used to having identity cards? They had to have them throughout their service careers, so they will feel quite at home when they go to the football terraces.

Mr. Moynihan: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will raise that point in his discussions with the Chelsea pensioners.
I should prefer to concentrate on the benefits of membership that I have outlined in detail to the House tonight. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members would prefer me not to shout, but if Opposition Members were a little more sotto voce in their sedentary remarks, I would happily speak more quietly.
Women and retired people can benefit from the scheme in the ways that I have outlined, and the scheme can gain much from their membership. As the issue has been discussed at length on many occasions in Committee and in the other place, I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment.

Mr. Vaz: I did not intend to speak until I saw the Minister's hysterical performance——

Mr. Moynihan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: No, sit down. The Minister is behaving like a deranged rabbit; he should behave himself.

Mr. Moynihan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: No, I will not give way.
In the two and a half years that I have been an hon. Member, I have never seen a performance by a Minister

such as the one that we have just seen. The reason why he is hysterical is that the case against the Bill, but for the amendments, has been made. The Government have provided no evidence to show that women and pensioners have contributed to football hooliganism.
The amendments go to the heart of the Bill. They attempt to save the sport, which will be destroyed if the Bill is passed unamended. They aim to ensure that women and children, who have a history of good behaviour and who have contributed to the game as a family sport, are able to attend matches and participate fully as spectators. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) clearly stated that there is no evidence that women and pensioners have contributed to a decline in the game, so why on earth should we exclude them?
The Minister's hysterical response is that if every group that has not contributed to hooliganism is exempted, only the hooligans will be left. That should be the purpose of the Bill. Is not "targeting" a great catchword of the Government? Do they not say, "We are targeting pensioners who are supposed to be receiving benefits"? Why do not the Government target those who are responsible for creating hooliganism? Women and pensioners certainly are not responsible for that.
My mother, who incontrovertibly is a women and who is 60 years old, having just become a pensioner, told me recently when she was listening to my speeches in Committee that she used to enjoy being a spectator at football matches. She saw Leicester City play at Filbert street, before they started their decline to the bottom of the second division, from which they will soon emerge. She will not go to football matches if the Bill becomes law unamended.

Mr. Burt: Why not?

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Member wants to know why not. The reason why she will not go is that she will be confused by the new offences that the Bill creates and by the controls being placed on the game.
I received a number of representations on the Bill, as have other hon. Members. Over one third of them were from women. They say that they will not go to football matches because they believe that the Government are trying to criminalise them and pensioners and to criminalise the elements that contribute to making the game a family sport.

Mr. Denis Howell: As we draw to the end of the Report stage, it is interesting and appropriate that we are dealing with women and pensioners. They have no record of causing difficulty at football matches, yet their rights are being restricted by the Government.
Is it not ludicrous that the two memories that we shall have of the Bill's proceedings are Lord Hesketh, who is the Under-Secretary of State in the other place, saying that hooligans will buy women's clothing from Oxfam shops to gain admission to football grounds in drag, and the Minister's even more ludicrous statement in reply to my hon. Friend the Minister for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that Chelsea pensioners must register for the scheme because of the benefits that they will receive from it? The benefit that they will receive is that they will be inundated with offers of membership of sex clubs in the west end of London. That is a fine benefit for Chelsea


pensioners. The Minister said that we should encourage all those activities and fringe benefits, which no doubt will be free for Chelsea pensioners.
We strongly object to the fact that there is no Government strategy to encourage the people who should be attending football matches to do so. Conservative Members said that everyone who registers for the scheme will receive its benefits, so why have the Government granted an exemption for disabled people? Why do not the Government want disabled people to have those great benefits? That, of course, was the give away. If it is right to exempt disabled people from the impositions of the Bill, by the same logic it must be right to exclude women and pensioners.
We know from the statement made by the former Home Secretary that the Government wish to move to all-seater stadiums. We know that soon that may become a condition of clubs' licences. Although we support all-seater stadiums in principle, I shall not go into all the difficulties that they will cause. However, one of the problems that has not been answered is whether the Government intend to make it a criminal offence for people to stand at a football match. People stand at football matches, even when they are allocated seats. I saw several thousand Leeds United supporters refuse to sit in the seats that they were allocated at Maine road. What do the Government intend to do about that? As we look at the details of the Bill, we increasingly see the impracticability of the way that the Government are moving.
We strongly believe that family enclosures should be encouraged. Time and again we said in Committee, and throughout the passage of the Bill, that it would make sense to have family enclosures, where a man and his wife can take their children and where they can be exempted from the restrictions and impositions that are made on them. For some reason, of which we are unaware, the Government continually turn that suggestion down. Yet that is the sort of development towards which we must if we have all-seater stadiums. Family enclosures certainly have our support.
The Minister is obviously obsessed by the "smart card" as he has talked about it three times now. The Minister told us that he wanted a system where a person simply "touches" the card on the turnstile and is allowed into the ground. The Minister must know that we have strong objections to that system because the card is the evidence of wrongdoing. The football authorities object to the "smart card" as they believe that a wrongdoer will simply pick up the card when the red light comes on and go off with it.
The scheme will not work unless the card has to be handed to the turnstile operator, who can retain it if a bogus entrant is trying to obtain admission to the ground. There is an overwhelming case for saying that women and pensioners are the people least likely to cause offence and break the law. Their attendance at football matches ought to be encouraged in every way. They ought not to be subject to the restrictions that the Minister and his colleagues are imposing upon them in the Bill.

It being Nine o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [17 July], and the Resolution this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided:—

Ayes 202, Noes 278.

Division No. 361]
[9pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
George, Bruce


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Allen, Graham
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Armstrong, Hilary
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Gordon, Mildred


Ashton, Joe
Gould, Bryan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Grocott, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Hardy, Peter


Battle, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Beckett, Margaret
Harman, Ms Harriet


Beith, A. J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bell, Stuart
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hood, Jimmy


Blair, Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boyes, Roland
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bradley, Keith
Howells, Geraint


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Buchan, Norman
Illsley, Eric


Buckley, George J.
Ingram, Adam


Caborn, Richard
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Jim
Johnston, Sir Russell


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Canavan, Dennis
Kennedy, Charles


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cartwright, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Knox, David


Clay, Bob
Lambie, David


Clelland, David
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coleman, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Litherland, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Livingstone, Ken


Cousins, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cox, Tom
Loyden, Eddie


Crowther, Stan
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cummings, John
McCartney, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cunningham, Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
McWilliam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martlew, Eric


Eadie, Alexander
Maxton, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meale, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Michael, Alun


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fisher, Mark
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Flannery, Martin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Derek
Morley, Elliot


Foulkes, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fraser, John
Murphy, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Brien, William


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
O'Neill, Martin






Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Parry, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Patchett, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Pike, Peter L.
Straw, Jack


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dennis


Randall, Stuart
Vaz, Keith


Redmond, Martin
Wall, Pat


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wallace, James


Reid, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Richardson, Jo
Wareing, Robert N.


Robertson, George
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rooker, Jeff
Whitney, Ray


Rowlands, Ted
Wigley, Dafydd


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Short, Clare
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)



Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Snape, Peter



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Chope, Christopher


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Allason, Rupert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Amos, Alan
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cormack, Patrick


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Cran, James


Atkins, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Devlin, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fallon, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Favell, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowis, John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Franks, Cecil


Browne, John (Winchester)
Freeman, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
French, Douglas


Buck, Sir Antony
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Chris
Gorst, John


Butterfill, John
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Gregory, Conal


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grist, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Ground, Patrick





Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Hague, William
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Christopher
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Heddle, John
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hind, Kenneth
Portillo, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Michael
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Redwood, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rhodes James, Robert


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Irving, Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jack, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jackson, Robert
Rost, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)


Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maples, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Marland, Paul
Stokes, Sir John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mellor, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thorne, Neil


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trotter, Neville






Twinn, Dr Ian
Wheeler, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Widdecombe, Ann


Viggers, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walters, Sir Dennis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ward, John



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Noes:


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Alistair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.


Wells, Bowen

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Nine o'clock.

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 5, line 12, at end insert
'and requiring that in Wales any application form for membership of the scheme shall also be available in Welsh'.

No. 32, in page 5, line 15, after 'that', insert ', except in an emergency,'.

No. 10, in page 5, line 35, leave out 'imposing charges specified in' and insert
'for the imposition of charges under'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Clause 7

DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP OF SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 6, line 44, leave out from 'with' to end of line and insert
'the date of the conviction.'.

No. 12, in page 6, line 47, leave out 'be withdrawn' and insert
'cease on the date of the conviction'.

No. 13, in page 7, line 9, after 'court', insert—'(i)'.

No. 14, in page 7, line 10 at end insert—
'(ii) shall explain to him in ordinary language the effect of the conviction on his membership of the national football membership scheme; and'.

No. 15, in page 7, line 13, leave out 'give' and insert 'send'.

No. 16, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'send' and insert 'give'.

No. 17, in page 7, line 19 at end insert—
'( ) Where, on an appeal against a person's conviction of the relevant offence or against a sentence of imprisonment imposed on him in dealing with him for the offence, his conviction is quashed or the sentence is reduced to one which is not a sentence of imprisonment taking immediate effect, the court which determines the appeal or, as the case may be, the court to which the case is remitted, shall cause notice of the quashing of the conviction or of the sentence imposed to be sent to the persons specified in subsection (7)(b)(i) and (ii) above and, where his conviction is quashed, the Authority shall re-admit him to membership of the scheme, but without prejudice to any proceedings under the scheme to exclude him from membership'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Schedule 1

RELEVANT OFFENCES

No. 42, in page 21, line 23 at end insert—
'( ) any offence under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 (persons found drunk in public places, etc.) of being found drunk in a highway or other public place committed while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance;
( ) any offence under section 91(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place) committed in a

highway or other public place while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance;'.

No. 43, in page 21, line 33 at end insert—
'( ) any offence under section 4 or 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driving etc. when under the influence of drink or drugs or with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit) committed while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance,'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Clause 8

THE FOOTBALL LICENSING AUTHORITY

No. 37, in page 7, line 43, at end insert—
'(5) The expenses of the licensing authority shall be paid by the Secretary of State.'—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Schedule 2

THE FOOTBALL LICENSING AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 23, line 34, at end insert—
'19A. The terms and conditions of appointments under paragraphs 18 and 19 above shall require the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury.
19B. The licensing authority shall, as regards such of its inspectors, officers and employees as with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury it may determine, pay to or in respect of them such pensions, allowances or gratuities (including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of employment), or provide and maintain for them such pension schemes (whether contributory or not), as may be so determined.
19C. If an inspector, officer or employee of the licensing authority—
(a) is a participant in any pension scheme applicable to that employment, and
(b) becomes a member of the licensing authority,
he may, if the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury so determines, be treated for the purposes of the pension scheme as if his service as a member of the licensing authority were service as an employee of the licensing authority, whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 10 or 11 above.'.

No. 45, in page 23, line 34, at end insert—

'Accounts and audit
19D. The licensing authority shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts, and shall prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct.
19E. The accounts of the licensing authority shall be audited by auditors appointed for each accounting year by the Secretary of State.
19F. A person shall not be qualified for appointment for the purposes of paragraph 19E above unless he is—
(a) a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and recognised for the purposes of section 389(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1985; or
(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;
but a firm may be appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.
19G. A copy of any accounts of the licensing authority which are audited under paragraph 19E above and of the report made on those accounts by the auditors shall be sent by the licensing authority to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after it receives them; and the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any accounts or report received by him under this paragraph.
19H. The Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.


19I. In paragraphs 19D and 19E above, "accounting year" means the period beginning with the day when the licensing authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March.'—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Clause 9

OFFENCE OF ADMITTING SPECTATORS TO UNLICENSED PREMISES

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 8, line 7, after 'prove', insert
'either that the spectators were admitted in an emergency or'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Clause 10

LICENCES TO ADMIT SPECTATORS:GENERAL

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 8, line 22, at end insert—
'(2A) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant a licence without—
(a) notifying the applicant in writing of the proposed refusal and of the grounds for it;
(b) giving him an opportunity to make representations about them within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the service of the notice; and
(c) taking any representations so made into account in making its decision.'.

No. 19, in page 8, line 31, at end insert
'(4A) A licence to admit spectators may also include conditions requiring specified descriptions of spectators to be refused admittance to the premises to watch designated football matches or specified descriptions of designated football matches or a particular such match.'.

No. 29, in page 8, line 31, at end insert—
'(4B) Where a designation order includes the provision authorised by section 1(3)(b) above as respects the admission of spectators to any ground as authorised spectators, the licensing authority may, by notice in writing to the licence holder, direct that, for the purposes of any match or description of match specified in the direction, the licence shall be treated as including such specified terms and conditions as respects the admission of spectators as authorised spectators as the licensing authority considers appropriate; and the licence shall have effect, for that purpose, subject to those terms and conditions.'.

No. 20, in page 8, line 46, after 'notice', insert 'in writing'.

No. 21, in page 9, line 3, after 'holder', insert 'in writing'.

No. 22, in page 9, line 8, leave out 'his' and insert 'the'.

No. 34, in page 9, line 15, after 'that', insert—
'except (in the case of the procedures) in an emergency,'.

No. 38, in page 9, line 36, at end insert—
'( ) The fees charged on the issue of licences—
(a) may be fixed so as to reimburse the licensing authority their expenses under this Part of this Act; and
(b) shall be paid by the licensing authority to the Secretary of State.'.

No. 30, in page 9, line 41, after 'licence' insert
'or in the case of subsection (4B) in the direction'.

No. 39, in page 9, leave out lines 44 to 46.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Clause 13

LICENSING AUTHORITY'S POWERS IN RELATION TO SAFETY AT FOOTBALL GROUNDS

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 11, line 23, at end insert—

'( ) Before exercising its power under subsection (2) above to require the inclusion of specified terms and conditions in any safety certificate, the licensing authority shall consult the local authority, the chief officer of police and either the fire authority (where the local authority is in Greater London or a metropolitan county) or the building authority (in any other case).
( ) As respects those terms and conditions, the local authority need not consult the chief officer of police, the fire authority or the building authority under section 3(3) or 4(8) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 before issuing a safety certificate or about any proposal to amend or replace one.'

No. 41, in page 11, line 43, at end insert—
'( ) Section 5(3) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 (appeals against terms and conditions of safety certificates) shall have effect with the insertion, after paragraph (ii), of the words "but not against the inclusion in a safety certificate of anything required to be included in it by the Football Licensing Authority under section 13(2) of the Football Spectators Act 1989".'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Clause 15

RESTRICTION ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 13, line 19, at end insert 'in ordinary language'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Clause 21

FUNCTIONS OF ENFORCING AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 17, line 40, leave out ', out of money provided by Parliament,'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

New Clause 1

FINANCIAL PROVISION

'.—(1) Any expenses of the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

(2) Any fees received by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Title

Amendments made: No. 24, in line 3, after 'spectators;', insert
'to provide for the safety of spectators at such matches by means of such licences and the conferment of functions on the licensing authority in relation to safety certificates for grounds at which such matches are played;'.

No. 36, in line 4, leave out 'by designated agencies'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As many hon. Members will know better than I, this Bill has been debated at length in their Lordships' House and in this House, totalling 100 hours for a Bill of fewer than 30 clauses and it must still return to their Lordships, for them to consider amendments made in this place. The Bill has received a thorough examination in both Houses. I have not been involved with it until now—I have come on to the pitch rather late in the game. I have a strong sense of personal deprivation at not having been involved in the


Bill's proceedings until now. I am told that I missed a particularly entertaining Committee stage, full of whippets and nostalgia. Although the debates have shown evidence of the strong feelings that the subject arouses, they have been conducted in a courteous and often good-humoured way, and I wish to thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for that. As the House will recognise, debates with them are often vigorous but seldom, if ever, bitter.
It is a sad fact that hooliganism has been an ugly scar on the face of football for several years. The measures taken by the Government, the police and the football authorities have reduced the number of very serious incidents over the past year or two, but the effect has been to contain the problem rather than to eradicate it. The price of containment has been the rigid segregation of supporters of rival teams and a massive police presence at and around football grounds every weekend of the season.
In the face of the continuing problem of football hooliganism in this country and when the England team travels abroad, the Government decided to introduce this Bill, and I regret that there have been repeated reminders of the continuing menace of violence at football matches during its passage. The Hillsborough disaster, of course, was not attributable to hooliganism, and we paused in proceedings on the Bill for a two-month interval following that tragedy. Unfortunately, however, the hooligans were unable to pause even for two months before resuming their activities. Less than a month after Hillsborough, on the last full Saturday league programme of the season—13 May—a series of violent incidents occurred inside football grounds and among travelling supporters throughout the country, and 300 people were arrested that weekend.
The opening months of this season have seen yet more incidents in, among other places, Stockholm on 6 September, in Manchester and other cities on 23 September, and in Blackpool on 30 September. I attended a game at Tottenham on that date.
The trouble at the Sweden v. England game in Stockholm, despite the efforts of the Football Association to deter the so-called England supporters from travelling, demonstrated the importance of part II of the Bill. The Manchester City v. Manchester United game showed how close violence can be to the surface of matches in this country if the strict segregation of rival spectators slips. The problems will be solved only if there is a fundamental change in the atmosphere among football crowds. We believe that the national membership scheme can bring about that change.

Mr. Orme: With regard to the England v. Sweden game, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem will not be resolved unless the hooligans are charged in the country where they have committed the offence? The Bill will not affect them if they are simply put on a train and sent home. What does the Secretary of State think about that?

Mr. Patten: I very much sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's point. We made that clear at the time to the Swedish authorities and we must work through the Council of Europe and in other ways to ensure that if hooligans are responsible for violence they are taken to

court and dealt with appropriately. It is extremely important that all countries where football is played and which love football should take tough action against hooligans wherever they come from. With regard to the particular events in Stockholm, hon. Members on both sides of the House were very much in agreement about ways in which we could deal with the people who bring not only the game of football in this country but England itself into such bad repute around Europe and beyond.

Mr. John Greenway: There is common agreement on both sides of the argument about this Bill that we must tackle the problem of football hooliganism abroad. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to discuss with other member states, whose international football clubs could be taking part in the World Cup in Italy next year, to ensure that any fans who besmirch the name of this country by behaving violently abroad will be prosecuted in Italy and not let free as happened in Stockholm? That is no help in the fight to defeat football hooliganism.

Mr. Patten: I know how much my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) knows about the issue and how concerned he is that we should find appropriate answers and solutions. I assure him that we are already discussing with the Italian authorities how best to cope with any hooliganism which might occur during the World Cup. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that those discussions should be carried forward as soon and as vigorously as possible. As I said earlier, we must discuss these issues not only with the Italian authorities, with next year's World Cup in mind, but more broadly with the Council of Europe as well as through Interior Ministers of the European Community.
I shall deal with one recent statement before moving on to the precise terms of the Bill. I totally repudiate the allegation 10 days ago by the chairman of Crystal Palace football club that the Government need more hooligan problems in the next few weeks to help the Bill through Parliament. He also made the extraordinary request to supporters of his club to be on their best behaviour for the next few weeks so as to impede the passage of the Bill. The implication seems to be that once those few weeks are up the fighting can start. My information is that Crystal Palace supporters do not have a bad reputation, in which case they deserve considerably better of their chairman.
I have referred to the pause in proceedings on the Bill as a result of the Hillsborough disaster, but the continuing violence has demonstrated a continuing need for its provisions. The Bill has, however, been amended in a number of important ways following the Hillsborough disaster and will, I hope, become law very shortly—before we have seen the final report of Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the needs of crowd control and safety at sports events. Parliament will, however, have two opportunities to debate the scheme following receipt of the final report —first, before the Football Membership Authority is appointed and, secondly, when the scheme has been submitted and approved by me. We have provided also for the Football Licensing Authority to have powers in respect of safety at football grounds if Parliament should so decide in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's final report.
This is a relatively short Bill, but it contains a number of major elements. First, there is the national membership scheme, to which almost all those attending designated matches in future will have to belong. Secondly, there is


power for the Secretary of State to require an increase in the proportion of seating as against standing accommodation at specified grounds. As the House knows, exercise of that power will be subject to detailed parliamentary approval. It is also a subject on which we look forward to Lord Justice Taylor's comments. Thirdly, there is power for the Football Licensing Authority to review local authorities' performance in relation to football grounds under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. Finally, there is power for the courts to impose restriction orders on convicted hooligans to prevent them from travelling to designated matches abroad. I repeat that I take on board the point made by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme).
These measures can have a major impact for good on the future of football in this country. I recognise that the membership scheme has aroused a great deal of controversy in football and elsewhere. It is, of course, the right of those who oppose the scheme to advance their arguments, although I deplore some of the disinformation that has been promoted. Nevertheless, the Bill will shortly be law and it is time for football to start to adopt a positive approach to the scheme.
I commend the way in which my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has taken the Bill through the House. I commend also the helpful support of my hon. Friend the new Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd). My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has repeatedly stressed the positive benefits that the scheme can bring to clubs and to their supporters if they approach it in a positive light. Not only does it offer the prospect of an end to the ever-present threat of hooliganism but, as those clubs which have recently begun to develop their own membership schemes have seen, it can bring a club and its supporters very much closer together.
It is, above all, in the interests of football that those concerned should begin to take a positive rather than a negative approach to the scheme. That is the message that I shall give to the president of the Football League and the chairman of the Football Association when I see them shortly, and it is the message that I give to the House now. I am pleased to be able to commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome the Secretary of State to the deliberations on the Bill. He has been brought off the substitutes' bench to strengthen the team. In football, they would refer to a fresh pair of legs, but what the legislation really needs is a fresh brain. My impression was that his obligatory speech on Third Reading was part of the price that he paid for getting the job in the first place. He would have been better advised to give this one a miss. I do not know whether he can confirm the story in the Lobby that there have been so many recent Cabinet changes that Cabinet Ministers, too, will be required to carry identity cards so that the security men in Whitehall can recognise them when they go to No. 10.
For all the Secretary of State's presentational skills, which he has again deployed at the Dispatch Box this evening, he is not going to convince the overwhelming majority of people that the legislation is right or likely to be effective. We said at the outset that this was the wrong

Bill at the wrong time and that it was also the wrong Bill at any time. That remains our view. It remains the view of people involved in our national game—spectators and players alike, management, administrators, some important sections of the police and certainly the overwhelming majority of the British public, who remain unconvinced of the merits of compulsory identity cards for football spectators.
Petitions including the signatures of 2,000 professional footballers and over 430,000 football supporters have urged the Government to think again. We share those views. The long weeks of debate and discussion of the proposals in Committee have increased opposition, not just on this side of the House but in the country at large. We have opposed the proposals for compulsory identity cards for football spectators in part I of the Bill because they are irrelevant and will have serious implications in some circumstances for crowd safety.
The Under-Secretary of State has said several times that there may be a test of the technology involved in setting up the system. We would welcome such an experiment, provided that it was a proper test that was undertaken, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has said, over a sufficient length of time—a season—and provided also that it covered all the various circumstances that arise throughout a season's fixtures. That would be a realistic and a reasonable test, but we remain deeply sceptical about the technical capability and efficiency of the proposed system.
With the growing number of Cabinet reshuffles, perhaps the best experiment for these ideas would be to test the technology at Cabinet meetings, to see how long it takes the ever-changing round of Ministers to get in arid out of No. 10 Downing street. We read that the Prime Minister is erecting palace gates at the end of Downing street. Perhaps she should include a turnstile in them while she is at it and let Ministers experience what they are going to impose on thousands of law-abiding citizens every weekend as they go about their business of enjoying, or trying to enjoy, a lawful sport.
We know, however, that an experimental period would not be acceptable to the Prime Minister, who is the real force behind the legislation.
When I listened to the Under-Secretary of State talking about pensioners and violence, I came to the conclusion that he had probably been the victim of too many handbaggings by a woman pensioner with whom he spends a bit of time. Certainly there is no other evidence to support the Government's contention that women arid pensioners should be subject to the provisions of the Bill. It beggars belief to hear the Minister for Sport say that Chelsea Pensioners decked out in brightest scarlet arid visible like beacons for miles around could somehow commit some misdemeanour at a football match and slink away quietly into the crowd without being recognised—it does not bear examination.
It is not only nonsense to include women, pensioners and unaccompanied children over the age of 10: it is insulting to them. It is grotesquely insulting to say that somehow these people represent a threat to public order and good behaviour. The Secretary of State and Conservative Members are apparently cowed by the manic obsession of the Prime Minister, but whatever else the legislation will achieve it will not increase the gate for the Conservative party at the next general election: quite the contrary.
Football identity cards appear to be one of the Prime Minister's pet projects; that is why the idea is being forced through the House and why all the evidence, all rational argument and sensible debate—I accept, like the Secretary of State, that it has been passionate at times, but always good-humoured and courteous—have been largely ignored by the Minister. He has not been allowed the latitude to accept even one reasonable amendment since the legislation first came before the House.
The signs are that, this season, league attendances are up by about 11 per cent. on the same period last year. If that continues, they could return to about 20 million for the first time since the early years of this decade—all without the imposition of the compulsory identity card scheme and the extra financial burdens that it will entail, particularly for small clubs, which are often hopelessly unable to bear such extra burdens.
A card scheme would work the other way, pushing attendances down by deterring many decent cut casual football supporters who attend several matches a season and who are estimated to account for about 20 per cent. of total attendances. We all know from personal experience that that is particularly so at bank holidays, Christmas and local derby games. I shall be at St. James's Park at Newcastle on Saturday when there is a derby game against Middlesbrough. There will be an extra large attendance——

Mr. George Foulkes: In the shape of my hon. Friend?

Dr. Cunningham: I shall indeed form part of the extra numbers. One of the regrettable aspects of being in Parliament is that I attend fewer football games than I would like to. Attendance will be swollen at that game because it is a popular local derby, and many thousands of casual supporters will come who were not there last Saturday and will not be at the subsequent home game.
I noticed that the Minister and supporters of the legislation shy away from the fact that the problem—and there is one—is no longer inside the grounds. Having an identity card will not stop people causing trouble in town and city centres and on trains and boats. The Secretary of State is aiming at the wrong target; so much has been apparent from the outset, but we have been unable to get Conservative Members to face up to the facts.
It is also worth reiterating that the 6,147 arrests related to football matches during the 1987–88 season represent a tiny proportion—0·03 per cent.—of the 18 million attendances at games in that season. Many of those offences also occurred away from grounds and were not related to violence or serious disorder. In that sense, too, the problem which has attached itself to football and which has been stuck to football by the Government's attitude has been exaggerated.
There is simply no guarantee that an ID card scheme will reduce the numbers of police required inside and around football grounds. In order to prevent potentially dangerous problems of fans arriving at computerised turnstiles just before kick-off, it is quite conceivable that in some cases we shall have to maintain, if not increase, existing levels of police at important games. We reject the underlying reason for these measures.

Mr. Burt: In relation to evidence about decreasing police charges, the hon. Gentleman could look at Luton Town and the way that it has managed. In the year prior to its scheme being introduced, there was a charge of £66,200 for the police. After three years of the scheme, the charge for the police had come down to £25,000. Does that not show the savings that can be made through the scheme?

Dr. Cunningham: Thanks to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), I have looked at Luton Town a great deal. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a scheme which does not allow, at least in theory, away supporters. Are we suggesting that the future of the game will depend on a legal ban on away supporters and people travelling to the games? Are we to say that, on Saturday, people will not be allowed to travel from Tyneside to Teesside to watch a football match at St. James's park? That is the sort of scheme that operates at Luton Town.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman did not let me finish.

Dr. Cunningham: I did let the hon. Gentleman finish, but he is not letting me finish. It is like asking me to answer a question when I am already trying to do so. The hon. Gentleman should contain himself.
I do not think that outside Luton there is a scintilla of support in football for the kind of scheme that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) is proposing. If he can mention any other club that is proposing to emulate that scheme, I should like to know about it.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman said that in theory Luton Town bans away supporters, and he gave en example of supporters from Tyneside and Teeside. He will understand that, if Sunderland operated that scheme, there would be nothing to stop others joining it. The hon. Gentleman also said that he did not think that any other club supported the Luton Town scheme. If he looks at the records he will see that the Police Federation favours a no-away-supporters scheme such as that put forward by Luton Town.

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, but the Police Federation is not a football club. It may have a team, but the federation is not a club. I live between Tyneside and Wearside, where it is impossible to tell who are the home supporters and who are the away supporters. One week they go to Sunderland and the next week they go to St. James's park in Newcastle. We cannot look to the future of football on the basis of home supporters only. That is preposterous.
We reject the Government's arguments for these measures and their use. They are a smokescreen for the Government's failure properly to address the growing level of violence in all aspects of life in Britain. That is regrettable but true. The overwhelming majority of football fans in England and Wales, decent law-abiding citizens, are having their civil liberties infringed in an attempt to divert the public's attention from the growing levels of disorder under the Government.
We are extremely doubtful whether the last-minute substitution of the new Secretary of State for the Cabinet's own-goal specialist can prevent the Bill from turning into yet another Government own goal. As I have said, I hope that no Conservative Member who votes for this measure


will think that that will resolve the problem or will increase support for them or their Government when the inevitable test of public opinion comes.
Since we support the principles of part II, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) have said, I say, more in regret than sorrow, that it will not work. Let us take the case of the match in Sweden, to which the Secretary of State referred. Six people were charged with offences on a cross-Channel ferry. No one was charged with any offence in or at the ground. What is the outcome of that to be? The people who were there—we may agree that they should not have been there—were not charged with an offence and subsequently could not have any action taken against them under this proposal.
In the recent game in Poland, no charges were levelled against British fans, because they did nothing wrong. Unless people can be charged with something in this country, part II simply will not work. I would like to see it work, because I agree with the Secretary of State that we simply cannot tolerate our name and reputation being damaged. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—I have to get his constituency right in view of the shadow Cabinet elections this week—pointed out that the Bill does not apply to Scottish fans, and quite rightly. We cannot tolerate people from England and Wales besmirching the reputation and name of our country. We want action taken. However, I say with no pleasure that part II will not work, because it does not contain the right provisions.
The Under-Secretary said that safety is at the heart of the Bill. I do not know how he can say that, when the Government have insisted on proceeding with this legislation in advance of the conclusions of the Taylor report. I sincerely hope and believe that the Taylor report will be a watershed in these matters, and it will be disappointing if it is not. To legislate in advance of the report is extraordinary, to say the least. As I understand it, Taylor is due to report towards the end of the year, perhaps in December. We may have the chance to debate the report and its conclusions in the early part of next year, but on that time scale, we shall not be able to do anything about this legislation until the autumn of 1990 at the earliest, and that is ridiculous. It is rather like the Secretary of State responding to our request to produce a White Paper on environmental policies but introducing a Bill first. "Let's have the legislation before we see the evidence" seems to be the name of the game in the Department of the Environment. I thought that we were getting away from that with the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman, but apparently we are not.
In view of all the evidence, of all the public opposition, of the gaping holes in the legislation, and of the imminence of the Taylor report, one would have thought that some of these arguments would have got through to Ministers. Not a bit of it. They are driving ahead with manic obsession behind them. The momentum is not theirs but that of the Prime Minister. That is why we have this Bill. That is why the Secretary of State is making a speech in support of legislation that I believe, in his heart of hearts, he would prefer not to touch with a bargepole. We shall implacably oppose this legislation in the Lobby, because it merits our total opposition.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I spoke against the Bill on Second Reading and I remain unconvinced that I was wrong to do so. I shall speak briefly tonight to support the arguments that I adduced at that stage.
I oppose the Bill as a soccer supporter and as a believer in law and order. We are faced with a national law-and-order issue which is not party political in its nature. There has been a breakdown of law and order among adolescents in our society, and if we keep them out of football grounds they will go somewhere else. They will not go home and read Aristotle, Socrates, Marx or Burke. Nor will they join the Workers Educational Association. They are likely to go steaming on trains, to use a modern term, to engage in muggings or to take part in robbery and the rest. Unless we tackle the problem of adolescents in revolt who are uncontrollable, our society is threatened by breakdown.
In a speech at a Conservative gathering on Saturday, I referred to three comprehensive schools in a reasonably well-run London borough. When attendances at those schools were checked over the spring term in 1987—the check covered 15 and 16-year-old boys—it was found that they were 47 per cent., 48 per cent. and 52 per cent. Half of the boys were not attending throughout the year, or they ran a rota system that determined the days when they did attend. If boys in that age group are not attending schools but are running loose for the last two years of their schooling, they will be uncontrollable for the rest of their lives. At some stage discipline has to be inflicted—I mean inflicted, if necessary—on all people.
In London, in 1977, a check was made when it was not known that there would be a test or examination in every school. The check was made in secondary schools in London and it was found that 28 per cent. of the pupils were missing. The check revealed that some 40 per cent. of 15 and 16-year-olds in London were not in attendance.
I do not think that many hon. Members are aware that there is a decline in competitive sport in our schools where there is proper refereeing and generally proper control. Rugby and soccer are collapsing. There are schools in our main cities where those sports are not played. The fighting in our playground spreads to fighting on the terraces and everywhere else. Responsibility lies with the Department of Education and Science. Unless soccer and rugby are played in our schools, with proper referees and the knowledge that the referee's whistle is final, we face a further breakdown in our society. If that takes place, football will become a riotous act, and the future will be even worse.
There will be difficulties for the police in patrolling outside football grounds. Unless there is a massive police presence, cards will be stolen. Photographs of all spectators will have to be checked, and that will lead to more fighting outside the ground. The idea that these people will behave properly to get into the ground is not realistic. They will find a way to get in. Many of them will have spent two years escaping from their schools, so they will seek to escape the law once they leave school. They will have been bred for that for some time.
When there is rioting outside a ground, the gate will be opened and the rioters will gain entry. The Bill will do nothing to improve behaviour outside football grounds.

Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend understand and accept that the police, in trying to implement the scheme if it comes about as a result of the Bill, will have to exercise the most ruthless scrutiny of supporters? They will have to ensure that if they are carrying membership cards the cards match the identity of the carriers. The police recognise that that will be a difficult task. Does my hon. Friend accept that that could have some benefit in controlling the difficult problems that occur outside grounds?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: My deduction is entirely different from that of my hon. Friend. If everyone is to be checked to that extent, we had better start getting the crowds outside the grounds on Friday night. If not, there will not be a kick-off at 3 pm. If the police have to check everyone before he or she enters the ground, there will be only four matches on a Saturday afternoon. There will not be enough constables to go round. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) intended to present me with the greatest argument against the Bill that I have ever heard. I am grateful to him for advancing it for me on my behalf. He adopted a clever and subtle approach.
I still do not understand why everyone should not have an identity card. One public house near where I live will not admit anyone unless they have a card issued by the licensed victuallers showing that they are over 18 years of age. We all need to carry cards for one purpose or another. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who is a notable football supporter, shows me his own identity card.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his proposal is for a card that proves the identity of the holder, whereas the scheme provides that a piece of plastic will become an electronic key allowing the holder to gain admission to a football ground? I suggest that we are not talking about identity cards or meaningful membership in the terms of Lord Justice Popplewell's report.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend. He reminds me that those of us who travel on the Underground will also be interested to see how long it is before the turnstile machinery breaks down. The automatic ticket barriers on the Underground serve to prepare ordinary people for all-in wrestling, or soldiers for assault courses.
It will then take one constable or two constables per man to ensure that everyone behaves, which will make the situation even more like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan than I previously imagined. However, I must not make too many rash statements—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."] I claim your protection, Mr. Speaker, from the pressure being put on me to attack the Bill even more. I want to be as impartial as I can.
What is needed in our society is compulsory school attendance between the ages of 15 and 16 and courses in secondary schools that are meaningful for those who attend them and which offer a job at the end. Young people will then know that it is worth attending school because there will be a job at the end of it. We must also pull together the extended family, which is breaking up in our society, and rebuild local loyalties. Today, loyalties are being built up against us. The little platoons of Edmund Burke are being broken up and in their place are being formed little warrior platoons against society.
Unless all those things are achieved, there will need to be Bill after Bill in an attempt to control our young people, which should be both unnecessary and unsatisfactory. I shall vote against the Bill, not because I do not want law and order—I do—or soccer to be run properly—I do—but because it deals with symptoms and not causes.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: There has never been any dispute about the desirability of eliminating football hooliganism in England and Wales. Nor has there been any dispute, since the Bill began its progress in this House, about part II. However, there has been a substantial dispute about the principle which lies behind part I, and in Committee and on Report there was substantial dispute about the practicality of the proposals enshrined in the Bill.
One issue that has to a large extend been brushed aside is civil liberty. The Bill requires that an activity which until now has been entirely lawful will be unlawful unless a person wishing to indulge in it takes the step and overcomes the obstacle of obtaining an identity card. It is that, among many features of the Bill, which makes it so unacceptable to many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
The principle of universality is more offensive than almost anything else that the Bill requires. The absurdity of including pensioners in the football supporters scheme has already been eloquently demonstrated. Earlier this evening, we witnessed the absurdity of hon. Members arguing that women should be included in the scheme lest supporters anxious to evade their responsibilities visit charity shops and clothe themselves in dresses before returning to present themselves at the turnstiles. When such an example has to be prayed in aid, the absurdity of the principle that the Government are seeking to apply is surely proved beyond question.
For me, and I suspect that I am not alone, this evening marks a sad and sorry end to the progress of an unhappy and ill-conceived piece of legislation. The Bill could have been a memorial to those who died at Hillsborough rather than a monument to Government intransigence and insensitivity.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Brunei (Appeals) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Football Spectators Bill [Lords]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Campbell: I well remember the atmosphere in the House the Monday after Hillsborough, and the disbelief felt by many of us when the then Home Secretary came to the Dispatch Box and told us that, after a period of reconsideration, the Bill was to continue its progress through Parliament.
This should not be a partisan measure. The elimination of hooliganism should be a matter of agreement throughout the House. I suspect that few Bills could be shown, on critical examination, to be as devoid of merit as this Bill has been, perhaps by the unforeseen but


illuminating events that have taken place outside. Hillsborough should have provided an opportunity, but instead it has been used to demonstrate the Government's determination to ignore the obvious. The Government would have commanded great support and respect if they had come to the House after Hillsborough and said that they would wait for Lord Justice Taylor's final report. I suspect—recent events may confirm my judgment—that the doctrine of infallibility pervades all the attitudes of the present Government. No argument in principle, and few arguments in detail, have deflected them from their predetermined course, as was demonstrated by the publication of the Bill in its original form.
Football is the poorer for this measure but, unhappily, football will have to live with it. The Football League and the Football Association will have to make the measure work, but responsibility for it will rest with those who have promoted it so enthusiastically, and I believe that they will come to regret that enthusiasm.

Mr. Lester: I shall speak only briefly, as I have had a big say on Second Reading and in Committee.
I agree with everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). It was not so much the technical objections to the Bill that we paraded in Committee; our opposition comes down to a matter of principle. I believe that it is a gross infringement of personal liberty to impose the Bill on so many law-abiding citizens. It challenges the lawless to try to defeat it, and we shall certainly see such action.
I can tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Bill is causing great distress to those who have supported their teams for many years. Season-ticket holders who are committed to their teams will be required to join the scheme, as will those who are already members of their club schemes, young reds or blues—depending on their team colours—and under-10s accompanied by adults. I cannot imagine even East Germany trying to impose a scheme with such draconian requirements on so many in order to isolate so few.
We have debated the anomalies and the omissions. We have discussed the fact that Scotland, which has a greater record of arrests than many clubs in England, is to be excluded, and that we are including all the member states of the European Community which may wish to cross the Channel to watch a football game. We are not even satisfied with that: the legislation will also apply to American tourists. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) mentioned football in America. I assure him that if he goes around the stores in the United States he will find many tee-shirts inscribed with the names of such famous teams as Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal.
It is so unreasonable that someone who comes to Britain for a fortnight as a tourist cannot watch a football match unless he joins the scheme. One hopes that there is still time for reason to prevail, and that when the FMA looks at the scheme it will build on everything good that has happened in football in recent years, such as the way Millwall has turned around from a club which was condemned to one which, through universal membership, has dealt with the problems of away supporters by putting

big screens at the Den so that people who cannot go to away matches can watch the match from their own ground.
The final principle I wish to mention, and the reason why I shall continue to oppose the Bill, is that one cannot impose a law without the consent of the majority of people who will be affected by it. The majority of people who provide the sport—the players—are against it; as are 91 of the 92 chairmen who run the clubs. About 500,000 regular football supporters have signed a petition which has been presented to the House individually by club and by the total membership of the Football Supporters Association. One cannot impose a law on an industry to that extent and hope to succeed. For those reasons I shall oppose the Third Reading.

Mr. Rowlands: I have agreed with the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on many issues. I wholeheartedly agree with his denunciation of the Bill.
As a Welshman approaching soccer, one has to be modest, to say the least. There are now only three Welsh league teams in the third and fourth divisions. Rugby is our national sport, so I approach the Bill from a rather different angle. My worry and concern is that the Bill will not stop where it is planned to stop—within league football.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe and others have demonstrated the absurdity of including women and old-age pensioners in the scheme. Another absurdity is the way in which the scheme would treat the Liverpool v. Spurs match that we saw yesterday on television in the same way as the Rochdale v. Scarborough match attended by 1,400 people last Saturday. Rochdale and Scarborough will have to have the same membership scheme with its plastic cards for a match watched by perhaps 1,500 to 2,500 people.
The argument why that is necessary, repeatedly produced by the Minister, is that, if we do not have a comprehensive scheme that includes teams such as Rochdale and Scarborough as well as Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur, the thugs will go up the road to clubs not covered by the scheme.
In south Wales the growing non-league sides have got into the Vauxhall League, and, by a marvellous rapid promotion through three leagues Merthyr has even played a European Cup tie, beating a first division Italian side. There was an amazing, wonderful sense of community spirit. My worry and concern is that the next league in which the scheme will intrude will be the Vauxhall league. Already many clubs such as Merthyr are drawing crowds bigger than those at third and fourth division matches. The Government plan to draw the line at the fourth division. But the Bill does not draw the line.
Another body that has emerged from our discussions is a huge new quango called the Football Licensing Authority. Ministers, the Football Licensing Authority and the Football Membership Authority will not only become involved in league football, but will have to decide when to designate matches involving non-league clubs versus league clubs. I suggest that when the Secretary of State leaves the Chamber he watches the first round draw of the FA Cup today. Twenty of the matches are between non-league and league sides. We discussed that issue


throughout our discussions in Committee. One of my functions was to identify the interface between non-league and league football.
If the Bill were enacted, it would have to be decided which of those 20 matches would be designated matches. What consequences would flow from their becoming designated matches? I think that the Secretary of State may have made a factual error when he said that every designated match will be covered by the comprehensive membership scheme. I hope that that is not true, because I believe that many matches will be designated but will not be subject to the membership scheme. If they are subject to it, half the clubs competing in the first round of the cup will be dragged into the scheme, making it difficult, if not impossible, for many fans of non-league clubs to support their team.
Anyone who has followed the debates on the Bill will be aware of, first, its gross absurdity and, secondly, its creeping bureaucracy. The new and elaborate Football Licensing Authority and the Football Membership Authority—two new quangos—have been established to handle the problem of hooliganism.
Yesterday, we watched magnificent football being played at the Liverpool-Spurs match. People who were unable to attend that match saw it on television yesterday afternoon. As a casual football spectator, one is shaken by the fact that teams such as Liverpool and Spurs cannot play in Europe, and by the fact that Ministers are ensuring that they cannot do so, which is disgraceful. The actions of a mindless group of hooligans mean that great clubs such as Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur cannot play in Europe. The day that this awful Bill becomes an Act, I trust that Ministers will say to the European football authorities, "This is our solution. We support the inclusion of our great clubs in European football." Whether it be Merthyr Tydfil playing Atalanta or Liverpool playing Real Madrid, there is no excuse for the way that Ministers have behaved to football fans over the past 12 months, as represented and signified by the Bill

Mr. Burt: Listening to the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Third Reading has been an enormously enjoyable experience. For many hon. Members, it has been one of those rare occasion when something that has been a hobby for many years has been discussed on the Floor of the Chamber. Most hon. Members were football supporters long before we knew anything about politics. An attachment to and love of a football club is deeper than an attachment to or love of a political party or Government.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: Shame

Mr. Burt: It is no shame at all. It is a subject which goes very deep. That is why the emotions aroused inside and outside the House have been so great. The argument is all about romance and the differing views of the game, both past and future. 
Conservative Members and the Bill, but not Labour Members, have seriously addressed the state of football today. We have asked whether it is good enough, and if there are problems what to do about them. Currently, the game is not in a good state, and has suffered decline for

many years for various reasons. Most football clubs are in debt not because of a football membership scheme or the Prime Minister but because insufficient people watch the game.
A public perception of violence has surrounded the game for the past 20 years, some of that has been based on truth, but much has also been based on media myth. The media have blown up incidents and suggested that they happen all the time. Most hon. Members who attend football regularly know that violence does not occur everywhere. However, if one asks the mums and dads who used to take their children whether they think that it happens, or ask a mother whether she is prepared to let her children go to a game alone, or whether those who grew up standing on the terraces with their dads would let their children go, they say "No, we dare not take the risk." That perception of the game, which has helped its decline, has been tackled by the Bill. It is important to change people's attitudes. The Bill, with other measures, will do that.
The romance that I mentioned is a romantic attachment to the belief that the way in which people carried on in the past should continue, without any need of legislative change. I do not believe that that can happen.

Mr. Lester: Is my hon. Friend aware that on Saturday last at the Nottingham Forest match a great part of the ground was full of children under 10 on their own, called Young Reds? They thoroughly enjoyed the game, to which they had gone because they had been encouraged to join that scheme. Does my hon. Friend realise that his efforts to encourage the attendance of young people who do not go to football matches by imposing this new scheme will mean that the people who already go to football matches will not go? They do not want to be members of this scheme in addition to being Young Reds. My hon. Friend is pitching for people who may or may not understand what is happening in football at the expense of those who do.

Mr. Burt: I understand what my hon. Friend says. It has been a feature of his contributions, like those of many Opposition Members. I do not believe that that is true. The attachment that those young people already show to football and their desire to watch the game will not be affected by their becoming members of another scheme. The fact that they are already loyal to a club and want to take part in its activities suggests that they will happily take part in this scheme, especially if there are associated benefits—for example, if it is fitted into the activities of their junior members' clubs. It will not act as an extra barrier.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the tragic events at Hillsborough. Hon. Members should be reminded that, on page 55, Lord Justice Taylor's report states:
Regrettably, only a month after Hillsborough, there were incidents that showed that violence and hooliganism are still liable to erupt at football grounds.
Lord Justice Taylor went on to detail the events on 13 May at Selhurst Park and on 20 May at the Cup final. He said that such incidents were still happening.
Hillsborough was not caused by hooliganism. Alas, we cannot say that it was a watershed for football hooliganism. I hope that it was a watershed for public safety, but hooligans are still causing trouble. Although we acknowledge that Hillsborough was not the fault of hooligans, I stress that it is the hooligan shadow of the


1960s that caused those deaths, in three ways. First, the police fear of fans moving across Sheffield led them to decide to place the fans at the wrong ends of the ground in terms of space. Secondly, the existence of perimeter fencing was a legacy of the fear of pitch invasion, and it contributed to deaths. The third spillover from the past was the police perception at the time the problems arose. They feared an invasion of the pitch more than any great disaster not caused by hooliganism. That is why the shadow of hooliganism of the 1960s caused the deaths at Hillsborough and why we cannot exclude those factors from our thinking.

Mr. Wareing: The hon. Gentleman referred to the FA cup final on 20 May. All the evidence from that cup final shows that the crowd was able to see the match unsegregated—there was no evidence of widespread hooliganism—and that is always a feature of derby matches, wherever they are played, between the Everton and Liverpool clubs. In the season before last, there were only 24 arrests at matches associated with Everton and 33 at Liverpool, but 452 at Glasgow Rangers.

Mr. Burt: I make no comment about supporters of Everton and Liverpool. The hon. Gentleman knows more about that than I do, but he also knows, because he was at the cup final, about the pitch invasions and other incidents that took place. They were not major, but they happened. I am afraid that the atmosphere which may exist between Liverpool and Everton did not exist recently when Manchester City met Manchester United, when there was a problem because opposing supporters were mixed in together.

Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this year's FA cup final, for the first time in the history of the competition, the cup could not be taken round the ground and paraded to the fans simply because the players were nervous of what might happen to them?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes his own point. The point that I seek to make is that all is not well with the state of our game. The Bill has been an attempt to try to do something about that.
What have we heard from the Opposition about what they or others would do? I am pleased to answer now the point raised by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He knows enough about my attitude to the game and the Bill to know that I do not support the Luton scheme strictly. Earlier in the debate, I raised a point about the decrease in policing costs to show that the changing nature of the crowd and the atmosphere at Luton had led to a reduction in policing costs. I genuinely believe that, although away supporters must continue to be part of the football scene, a change in atmosphere produced by the membership scheme can achieve that and can assist in lowering costs.
I hope that the segregated grounds, the closed circuit televisions and the police escorts to and from the station, which are a common feature of first division matches today, will not remain a feature of the game when people realise that they cannot go on like that. We talk about civil liberties here. We should consider the civil liberties of supporters kept penned in after the game against their will to allow the rest of the crowd to disappear, thus enabling them to return to the station safely. That is the status quo in some grounds today. We do not want that to be part of

football and we must do something else. I do not support the Luton scheme or the Police Federation's view that the only future for football is to abandon away supporters. The Bill is football's last opportunity to ensure that that does not come to pass.
The Opposition have presented a negative approach to the scheme. I understand the reasons for that and why keen football supporters and the Professional Footballers Association have adopted the same approach. However, now comes the point of change. Once the Bill becomes an Act, we shall all have a vested interest in ensuring that as many people as possible join the national membership scheme. If we do not do that, it will not be my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the Government who suffer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes it will."] No, it will not. The first to suffer will be the clubs which we want to protect and support by going to matches.
It will be necessary for people to work and to promote schemes in their areas. I bet that most hon. Members will be among the first queuing at their clubs at the start of the appropriate season to pick up their membership tickets because they want to be associated with their clubs and their local areas, and they want to do something to help. The scheme offers the opportunity to raise money for football and to put it back into the stadium and the fans, as we have been asking all along. This is a positive opportunity for football, which football can grasp.
We can be positive about the Bill. If we speak privately to supporters or to executives of the PFA, we realise that they know that football's future, when the Bill is enacted, will be dependent on the membership scheme becoming a success. I want to quote from an important article by David Miller, the sports writer for The Times, which he wrote in January this year. I quote this article in response to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who raised the question of civil liberties. He should take note of David Miller's words:
speaking as one who has watched nearly 4,000 matches, I am convinced that a marginal loss in liberty for the general spectator is worth the saving of a beautiful game for future generations and worth the restoration of a decent society. The framework is capable of bringing back to a fine sport some of the dignity and sportsmanship among spectators which has been foully corrupted and of preventing known criminals from attending overseas matches.
If membership is made attractive and the Football Membership Authority has the opportunity, the game will be able to rid itself of its present image and will have a great future. Football should not see itself as being picked upon. Football will be seen as the game that began the great community fight-back against hooliganism and violence in which the football supporter finally shed the unfair image which the violent offender had cast round him. At last our great national game will recover its self-respect.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I do not know whether it was the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) who had a public meeting in his constituency—perhaps he will confirm that—where all the football supporters turned up and took a vote and the hon. Member lost by 300 votes to 10.

Mr. Burt: It was 256 votes to three.

Mr. Ashton: That is a little less than the majority that the hon. Gentleman won, and I can safely say that there will be a Labour gain in Bury next time.
The Bill has nothing to do with football. It has to do with politics, law and order and votes. After the 1983 and 1987 victories, the Prime Minister decided that there were many working-class votes to be gained by emphasising law and order. She may have had a point in the case of some of the inner cities where crime and unemployment were growing and where people living in tower blocks were scared of being mugged or burgled. The Prime Minister associated football with the crime problem. She looked at the figures and found that 450,000 people went to a football match one week and perhaps a different 450,000 people the next week—given that clubs only play at home in alternate weeks. She realised that there were 900,000 regular spectators, and the opinion polls showed that about 70 per cent. were in favour of something being done —or something being seen to be done.
I suspect that the Prime Minister sat there one night with Denis over a glass of whisky and asked, "What can we do?" and Denis said, "Why don't you do what our golf club does? Everyone has to be a member and that is how we keep the riff-raff out. That is the only way to run it."
We have seen the Prime Minister's attitude to the Chancellor and to Ministers of Sport, the previous two of whom she sacked, probably because they had the integrity and honesty to tell her that the scheme will not work and is impracticable. It may be a wonderful theory, just as prohibition, prices and incomes policies and other policies over which Governments have made mistakes may be wonderful theories.
The Government think that the scheme can be imposed on a section of the community, but people have to volunteer to accept the law. People may say, "Okay: we don't agree with the breathalyser"—or the highway code or code of conduct—"but we shall go along with it." In this case, however, 98 per cent. of those connected with football—Conservative directors, the fans who stand behind the goal, the players and even the police—say that the scheme will not work. They know that the scheme is impracticable and will cause more trouble than it is worth.
The Prime Minister is a very determined woman and she refuses to accept that fact, just as she refuses to accept arguments at a higher level—about the economy, perhaps —or to take the advice of the Chancellor. When she has rows with the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, exactly the same thing applies. In this case she has plucked an idea out of the sky and seeks to impose it on almost a million people, saying, "This is the way that it will be done."
The Prime Minister has not realised that in every society there needs to be some outlet for violence. I did two years of national service. When we had national service, there was a natural outlet for young people's aggression. Wars, too, have provided an outlet—although not, perhaps, a satisfactory one. There has to be some release of high spirits and tension. We need something to get rid of the natural macho over-enthusiasm of young people, and if football did not exist, something would have to be invented to take its place. If young people can go to football matches and indulge in a spot of harmless tribalism and shout their heads off or wave rattles as they used to in the old days, or chant or sing songs, that prevents crime.
The reason for the terrible crime problem in America is that there is no collective sports outlet. I was recently in Washington with other members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and we saw the effect of crack on black teenagers, who have no such outlet. They cannot go along and support a football team, because a ticket for a football match in America costs $40. Baseball is much cheaper, but in America football is a middle-class sport.

Mr. John Butcher: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that football should be a cathartic experience for hooligans and that either working-class kids should be allowed to vent their spleen —if they are in the small category who are yobs—through the sport or we must invent another outlet for their problems?

Mr. Ashton: There must be an opium for the people. In Spain, Italy, Holland or South America or in the inner cities in England, in Liverpool or at Arsenal, there are huge masses of young people who do not have much hope or expectation. They may have miserable jobs and have to stand by conveyor belts all day. They may even be unemployed. They need something to believe in and it is better that they believe in their football team than in the IRA, or in peddling drugs, muggings, stick-ups or heists and everything else that they have in America. I am not defending the hooligans, but there would be much more hooliganism if football did not exist.
There are problems on new year's eve and at the Notting Hill carnival. There are problems in towns like Aylesbury and Stroud which do not have football teams. Those are lager lout areas where there is no football team to provide a safety valve.

Mr. Carrington: I think that I must be misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be implying that not only should violence at football matches be tolerated for the greater good of society, but it should be encouraged for the greater good of society. I hope that I am wrong, because if that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying, that is the greatest justification for the Bill that I have heard.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately distorting what I have said. There used to be national service for young people aged 18, 19 or 20. I did national service and it tamed us. However, it does not exist any more. There used to be wars, but they do not exist any more either. The public schools produced the Hooray Henrys, for want of a better word. There will always be a surplus of energy among 18, 19 and 20-year-old males. That will always exist. If there is a natural safety valve for that whether it be playing football or standing on the Spion Kop linking arms and singing songs to get rid of that tribalism, that is a very good and necessary safety valve.

Mr. Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashton: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman will just distort what I have said. he has not been listening carefully. [Interruption.] It is no good the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), interjecting from a sedentary position; he is far too fat to have played any sport in his life.
Bombs were set off at football matches in Holland. The Dutch introduced a membership card scheme, but only for the five worst clubs. However, they have had to drop that


scheme because it does not work. The hooligans laughed at it, the police said that they could not impose it and the Dutch Government had to drop it. The Dutch Government are a laughing stock.
Never let it be said—but it has been said—that the Opposition support the hooligans. We do not, because we go to the matches. There is no way that I can support the hooligans when I have been involved—innocently—in punch-ups in the past. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but they have never been on the Spion Kop. I doubt whether any Conservative Member has paid to go and stand up at a football match on the Spion Kop over the past five or 10 years.

Mr. David Lightbown: Which Spion Kop?

Mr. Ashton: The Government Whip, the fat guy at the front there, has never paid to stand on the Spion Kop. If he had, he would understand the problems with hooliganism. Anybody who has paid to go and stand on the Spion Kop knows that the hooligans must be eradicated. Several things are being done to eradicate the hooligans.
The Football Trust, which the Opposition have supported, is putting £9 million into football every year. For example, I refer to video cameras. It has been proved possible to arrest a hooligan within 30 seconds. If Conservative Members went to football matches they would see video cameras around the grounds. Hon. Members have seen the video cameras in the Chamber —[Interruption.] Conservative Members have all had a drink. I am quite prepared to let them have a laugh. It is half-past 10. They have been in the bar, studying the affairs of the world. As in the Chamber, video cameras at football grounds can zoom in and pin-point a hooligan inside 30 seconds. The man in the control box simply phones down to the policeman who is nearest to section C1, C2, AB or AB2 and so on, and the hooligan is immediately arrested. That is done time and again. That proves that policing works to a great extent inside football grounds.
As the Minister said, the system has fallen down at Crystal Palace—not at Blackpool, because the trouble was

outside the ground. There has been one instance inside a ground, and that was at the Birmingham City v. Crystal Palace match at the end of last season. Information was passed on to the police that the average Birmingham away crowd of 3,000 or 4,000 would be doubled or tripled. Thousands of people travelled to Crystal Palace. They went to the wrong ground—the running track—but the police directed them to the right ground. The police took no notice of the advance information that the fans were travelling overnight, and they were caught unawares. That is why, if the supporters were allowed to sit on the Football Membership Authority and add their intelligence to the authority, such instances could be prevented in future.
The obvious, chronic lack of understanding means that we will get no further. The Conservative scoffers never pay to go to a match, never stand in a queue in the rain, and never see the way in which crowds are ripped off. They never get off a tube at Wembley to be forced into a tunnel in exactly the same way as happened at Hillsborough—the tunnels are still there. The authorities know that the tunnel is a death trap. The authorities at Wembley have said that they will put up £1 million so that fans can go straight to the entrance to Wembley. Brent council and London Transport have offered to put up £1 million each, but the Government will not put up their quota. No doubt, when there is a disaster at Wembley and people are killed, it will be the fault of the fans.
Time after time, when people such as myself who stand behind the goal tell the authorities what is wrong, we are jeered at, laughed at and scoffed at until another 95 people are killed. Suddenly, when another 95 people are killed, the scoffers are all experts. This House has 300 or 400 experts who know exactly what is wrong, but none of them was at the match. None of them will pay for a ticket or travel to support a club. None of them has stood in the rain. None of them has been like the kids who go on the Kop and pay two days' pay to stand and watch their favourite team. We have to listen to the scoffs, the jeers and the experts until the next disaster or punch-up happens. Once again, it will be the fault of the people behind the goal and not the fault of the authorities.

Mr. John Carlisle: The speech by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will have been enjoyed by members of the Committee and others in the final say of this great game that we have been playing over the past few months. The hon. Gentleman made some remarkable statements. The romantic side of the story which he normally portrays to the House was overwhelmed by some of his strange theories. None the less, he is not the only one who pays to go to a football match. He is not the only one who stands behind the goal. He is not the greatest living expert on football. Many Conservative Members share his sentiments and experiences as youngsters or even as adults. I remember that, as a small boy, I went to Kenilworth road at a time when small boys could go and watch the great games at Luton.
Many of us understand the problems that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has put before the House. He is right to say that there are several experts—[Interruption.] There are several who are sitting behind him now who have made a late appearance, perhaps because they have nowhere else to go at this time of night; they are probably now experts on something that we have been considering in detail over the last few months. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt): it was an extremely good Committee. We discussed the many real problems. Regrettably, as I think the hon. Member for Bassetlaw knows, we shall have to discuss them again, because this scheme is not the ultimate answer.
I do not believe that we shall see the end of football hooliganism as a result of the legislation that we are about to pass. However, we have gone a long way down the road towards arresting a problem that has been the scourge of the game for so long. What amazes Conservative Members, and also many people outside football, is that, when the Government make an attempt—in the opinion of Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends, a somewhat lame and misguided attempt—to try to remove from football the very problem from which football has suffered, which has had a devastating effect on the game in terms of its public support, by cleaning up the game and pushing hooliganism elsewhere—many of us accept that it will go elsewhere—they are derided and told that they are misguided and that basically all is well. If all were well with football, there would have been no need for the legislation that has taken up a lot of the time of the House.
I regret the need for the Bill. I said that many years ago, and I think that many of my hon. Friends agreed with me. However, something had to be done to save the game as well as to save those who are, regrettably, afflicted by football hooliganism. That is why I was proud to be a member of the Committee. I was also very proud that my right hon. and hon. Friends have brought the legislation before the House, framed, as it has been, by the experience of my own club at Luton.
There was no doubt in the minds of those of my constituents and myself who were at Kenilworth road on that very dark night in March 1985 and who saw the type of havoc that was wrought—some hon. Members on both sides of the House saw it for themselves, either first hand or on television—that something had to be done.

Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) was chairman of the club. He and his fellow directors decided that something had to be done.
We could not sit by and watch our town be desecrated by hooligans. We could not sit by and see the support for our club suffer because of a few mindless yobs who decided that night to break up the turnstiles, the pitch, the seating and the benches and to damage my constituents' homes, their garden walls and their cars. Everyone knows the picture that football hooligans paint as they whip through a town and the damage that they inflict upon its residents. That is why the scheme was introduced in the town. It has brought with it a variety of benefits, which I shall outline to the House.
The scheme has brought peace to the town, something that not many towns and cities can claim on Saturday afternoons. It has also brought peace for the residents who live around the ground, for the members who live in and outside the town and for those who come into the town to shop or to visit relatives. As my hon. Friend for Bury, North rightly pointed out to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), it has meant the deployment of police away from the ground to other areas of the town and county. We in Luton regrettably suffer from a high crime rate, but it has been arrested. At least we can now direct the police to areas where they are needed, instead of having to herd fans to and from the ground.
The scheme has also brought my town a sense of safety. People can travel on public transport—trains, buses and taxis—or in their own cars in and around the town in the sure knowledge that they will reach their journey's end unscathed. That cannot be boasted by many of our towns and cities.
The scheme has brought peace to those who want to shop in and around the ground, where the shops now stay open right up to kick-off time—and are open when the fans come out. It has brought peace to the pubs, which now stay open and whose takings have risen. We do not have to shut our pubs in Luton just because there is a match on a Saturday.
The scheme has brought commercial advantages to the town centre, where people have returned to shop. Shopkeepers in and around the centre of the town will testify that, since the scheme came into force, people have flocked to shop in Luton, because they know that they will not be interrupted in their shopping by gangs of marauding fans getting off trains and buses on the way to the ground.
The scheme has attracted business men to the town, in the sure knowledge that they can set up their businesses without the thought that every other Saturday they will have to shut them when the fans come through. More than anything, it has brought a pride to our town that we did not possess before. We have become an example to the nation—our arrests are the fewest in the league. That is remarkable for a first division club. Granted its gate is moderate, but it is considerably more than that of many other clubs in the country.

Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the seven arrests at Luton Town football club last year were of people deliberately trying to break the system?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful, will know that in the two previous years there was only one


arrest, and that, even with the seven, we have fewer arrests than any other club in the League—including the third and fourth division clubs.
Luton supporters have not complained about many of the things that Opposition Members think they should. They have had to go and buy a membership card, at a pound a year, and about 20,000 of them have done so. No one has complained to me, or to my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) or for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) that his civil liberties have been eroded by this. It is nonsense to say that people will not buy tickets. If they are keen football supporters, it is a small sacrifice to make for the benefits that have been well paraded this evening and in Committee.
People have not complained, either, about the fact that they can now watch football in peace. They can go to a game with their children, or their children can go on their own. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) that people will not allow their children to go to matches at many clubs because of the history of hooliganism—or worse, the fear of it. At Luton, they do not complain about that, because they know that they can watch the game in comfort and peace.
People do not complain about the commercial advantage that the scheme has brought their club. The books are now balanced and we are attracting more sponsors than ever before. Luton fans do not complain about that, although the Opposition think they should.
Luton people also do not complain about being shouted at and abused by a load of youths, or about hearing racial chants and obscenities. The Opposition say that that will not be eradicated by the scheme. They do not complain about being able to walk to the ground without having been herded in by police horses or dogs. Residents do complain of having to he escorted to their homes by the police at night, as they are at Highbury on big match days. That does not happen at Luton. Fans can go to the ground in peace and comfort in the full knowledge that they will not be attacked as they approach. No longer do they complain when they return to their cars that they have been scratched and damaged, because they are intact now. When they get home their garden walls are still standing——.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: No.
They do not complain that some yob has pushed down their walls or jumped into their garden.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is a latecomer to these proceedings. Many hon. Members in the Chamber and in Committee have thought long and hard about this subject and have discussed it at great length and with great seriousness. The levity that he tries to bring to the debate is to be regretted. I shall not give way to him because he is a late comer and knows little about our proceedings. Perhaps he had better make a contribution somewhere else.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Member, who did not give way to me, was clearly referring to an incident that occurred in my constituency last week. Common courtesy suggests that he should give way to me to allow me to explain.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Chair has many responsibilities, but they do not extend to incidents in constituencies.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not even know the constituency that the hon. Member represents, nor do many of my hon. Friends. Probably his own constituents do not know about him.
The Bill and the scheme will mean that everybody will be able to enjoy what we enjoy in Luton. As the Minister has said many times, people travelling abroad will be able to do so with a degree of safety and, hopefully, in the knowledge that when they go to a match abroad they will not find the games interrupted by fans who go to wreck matches and not to watch them.

Mr. Pendry: We have heard a great deal about the virtues of the Luton scheme. The hon. Gentleman says that there have been very few arrests at Luton during the last two seasons. We know that, when the scheme was introduced, the former secretary of Luton Town said that it was to save visiting supporters from the Luton hooligans. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of a reply that I received from a Home Office Minister last year? He said that 52 Luton Town supporters were arrested following a match with Ipswich Town the season before last. The hon. Gentleman should correct the record.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member knows that I always try to be helpful to him, because I know that he has ambitions. With departures impending on the Opposition Front Bench, he will need my help and the help of some of his hon. Friends to put forward his point of view. He should have listened to the extensive replies in Committee which showed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield will confirm, that those 52 so-called Luton supporters merely came from the Luton area and were not travelling on a coach approved by Luton Town football club. That shows the strength of the Luton scheme. We know and can approve certain carriers for our fans and we know that the fans will behave.

Mr. David Evans: Not one of the 52 people arrested was a member of the Luton Town scheme.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield and I have paraded the Luton scheme and will continue to do so, because it forms the basis of this excellent Bill. We look forward to hon. Members enjoying the advantages of the membership scheme, as we have done over the last three years. In more ways than one, this is a momentous night for football. At the end of the day, when crowds begin to flock back to our national game, a great deal of gratitude will be extended not only to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has led us splendidly over the last few months, but to the Government, who have had the courage to tackle a problem that was ignored by the Opposition.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Luton Town is a shattering irrelevancy. It is the reason behind the Bill that the hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) have been forcefully pushing from behind the scenes. However, the provisions of the Bill will not apply to Luton Town, because clause 1(10) allows the exclusion of people from grounds even if they have national identity cards. That will


apply at Luton, because the police in Luton are asking for that. The scheme at Luton will continue, and it will not be the scheme that will be applied elsewhere. All the detail, discussions, statistics and information about the changed nature of life in Luton will be irrelevant to the rest of the universe.
The Bill is inside out, the wrong way round. It is a procedural mess. It went first to the other place, rather than coming here. Any measure of such great significance to the interests of our constituents should come to this House before going to the other place, which can examine, revise and make suggestions for change; rather than the other place setting the scene before the Bill is brought to us. Then, in Committee, we tried to open up the discussion and have a logical debate on the Bill. We wanted to look first at part II, which deals with exclusion orders, making people attend police stations or perhaps do community service during match times. That is a way to tackle the problem of hooliganism in that they are targeted, and then action is taken against them. However, we were not allowed the privilege of a sensible debate on that before going on to debate identity cards. That provision was steamrollered through.
All the Committee's debate took place before Taylor's interim report. It was available when we discussed the ways and means resolution, and for Report and Third Reading, but it has not been debated, except when the Opposition have initiated a debate, and there has been no response to the problems with which it deals. It is a disgrace that passage of the Bill was not delayed until Taylor had reported fully. In his interim report, Taylor says that he will not discuss ID cards because he wants to deal with them in the full report.
On Friday, we discussed the ways and means motion and the money resolution before we discussed the Bill itself. The Government's timetable was in a mess, and they had to deal with the Companies Bill and the Children Bill. Therefore, they decided to squash the remaining stages of this Bill by dealing with the Children Bill once they had the timetable motion for this Bill. They forced the closure of the debate, thus preventing Labour Members from participating in the debate.
The guillotines that have fallen on our debates have made a nonsense of them. We dealt first with six groups of Government amendments, and they had only two non-Government groups of amendments, one from the Opposition and one from rebel Tories. That left 12 groups, including those dealing with some important measures—for example, the exclusion of third and fourth division clubs from the scheme—which, were never discussed.
Furthermore, we are involved in a great act of hypocrisy in that we are establishing a system of ID cards that will be collected and paid for by about 1 million people, and will be responsible for 400,000 people attending matches each week. This will be done by a Division being called in which 500 of us will go through one or the other Lobby, and in 15 minutes we shall decide how many Members are here. If there is any need for "smart cards" it might be in this place, because the match played out here has involved no more than one tenth of the hon. Members who will vote.
We witnessed a timetabling disgrace in Committee, which meant that we had only 16 sittings. The timetable

motion was introduced before we reached some of the more important items in the Bill. There has not been full and proper discussion of part II and the developments that could flow from it.
The Government have used the most dubious statistics in trying to establish their position. They have been selective and have used specific examples—serious ones, to which we should respond—for universal application. The result is that their conclusions are irrelevant.
We need to know what is happening at the grounds in terms of violence and arrests. We must know also where the arrests take place and of the arrests and charges that ensue. That information has not been made available to us. A written question of mine was answered on 19 December, which was reproduced in many newspapers and described as a league of shame. The figures showed that there were certain areas where problems needed to be targeted, but the average number of arrests—not convictions—was five per match. At the average club, there were three arrests per 10,000 spectators, and there were 22 clubs between Manchester and Colchester where there was one arrest per 10,000 or less. At Colchester, there were in fact no arrests at all. That is better than the much-vaunted Luton record.
The details supplied by the Arsenal football club include nine cases of theft, eight of ticket touting and 12 drug cases. What are the offences that lead to arrests throughout the country? Let us have that information, so that we can respond with the appropriate targeting.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that last week, in advance of the scheme being introduced, there was a capacity crowd at the Arsenal ground? The police decided to throw a quarter-mile cordon around the ground. No one could break the cordon unless he had a ticket for the match or could prove that he lived within the area enclosed by the cordon. In effect, there was an identity scheme for the match and for the residents in the area. There have been no problems at Arsenal during the past year.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will return to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Barnes: The Arsenal problem will develop and expand with the introduction of the identification scheme. The police will seek to stop people as they approach the ground to ascertain whether they are entitled to be in the vicinity, and that will lead to potential danger.
The ID scheme will lead to considerable dangers, including a breakdown of order, confusion and financial loss. The card system will prove difficult to implement. The Minister has told us that at each ground the names—and numbers, presumably—of those who have been excluded will be supplied by means of a telephone computer, for example, so that those responsible will know exactly who has been excluded. We have been told, however, that it will be possible to purchase new cards on the day at post offices and grounds, and that at the Halifax and Hartlepool sheds, for example, it will be possible to obtain information to enable people to get new cards. It will be possible for hooligans who are the subject of an exclusion order to obtain extra cards so that they can enter the ground. The system will not prevent that.
There will be crushes at the grounds. The crush that developed at Hillsborough will be seen at other grounds, and to an even greater degree. It is likely that the scheme


will not reflect the halcyon dream of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). Instead, there will be greater problems and greater trouble. Hooligans will be encouraged to beat the system by snatching cards, in the way that they snatch tickets now from people as they arrive at matches. They will even engage in games, challenging people to present their cards. Supporters will find themselves in trouble if their identity cards reveals that they do not belong to the "right" club. The House should instead be developing the provisions in part II and amend the Bill accordingly.
The scheme will interfere with freedom of access to grounds. The Government are introducing internal passport systems for football matches at about the same time that barriers between European countries are being removed to allow the individual more freedom of movement. The Government will criminalise fans while still being unable to contain hooliganism.
I shall be among those who will not seek to obtain an identity card. Two weeks ago, I attended a match at Upton park, to watch West Ham play Sunderland, which I support. I decided to dash out to Upton park only about an hour before the game, which I watched from the terraces behind West Ham's goal. Under the scheme, I would not have been able to do that—which might have been just as well, given that my team was beaten 5:0, which did not make it a particularly enjoyable occasion. However, on other occasions I might want very much to gain admission to a match at the last moment.
Identity cards have massive civil liberty implications. Plastic cards are not only used by burglars and others but can be stolen by hooligans, and even used as weapons—especially if they are cut up. In certain circumstances, even being in possession of a plastic card could be said by the police to be possessing an offensive weapon.
Not only can identity cards set off security systems such as those found in the House of Commons: they may also be imprinted with confidential information about their holders. That aspect has not been hemmed in by the Bill. Cards can hold information that is irrelevant to the claimed purposes of the Bill, which has been given as the need to curb hooliganism—but another reason for the legislation is commercial.
Conservative Members have stressed different aspects of the Bill, with some being much keener on its commercial potential than on its value in containing hooliganism. The scheme will allow information to be collected about the matches one attends, the turnstiles one enters, one's creditworthiness, and information provided by other organisations. The cards could even hold information about the holder's non-payment of the poll tax and any problems he might have in that connection.
In Committee, stress was placed only on the scheme's commercial value and not on improving the situation on terraces in the future. The hon. Member for Bury, North suggested that the identity card scheme will change the face of football. In fact, it will restrict attendances, push up prices and sanitise soccer to make it fit for the credit card-carrying classes. The Bill will provide a vehicle for all kinds of advertising material and junk mail. The consequence will be, as at Luton, that people will carry a plastic card enabling them to watch plastic football played on a plastic pitch.

Mr. Carrington: We have heard a great deal about the problems that face football, and there can be no doubt that what we have heard exemplifies the violence from which it has suffered over the past few years. We have heard much about violence inside the ground, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has described the difficulties that Luton used to experience from violence outside the ground.
We have heard, too, about the problems inherent in estimating the size of the violence problem from the number of arrests made at matches. I suggest that the number of arrests is no gauge of the degree of violence. The problem is not the spectators who are arrested, but inherent hooliganism which is not bad enough for the police to take direct action—or, indeed, which happens away from the police presence.
One of the great benefits that the Bill will bring is an overall reduction in the level of violence. Violence outside the ground is the most pernicious. That is the violence that has earned football the worst name that it has had for perhaps 50 years. It is often claimed that the Bill would not address such violence, but I suggest that once a full membership scheme is brought in and people intending to go to a match who behave in an anti-social manner find that if they are identified—not just by the police, but by the club—they will be prevented from going to future matches, they will no longer visit that club or congregate outside because there will be no purpose in doing so if they know that they will not be allowed in. Away supporters will not catch the train from their home town to see the match and local supporters will stay at home, and perhaps watch "Match of the Day" on television—they will not stand in the street outside the ground creating mayhem.
The Bill constitutes a major benefit for those living near football grounds. It will remove from them the Saturday afternoon threat, not of being beaten up or otherwise assaulted, but of racial abuse, sexual harassment, urination in their front gardens and vandalism of their motor cars, the threat of not being able to go out and do the shopping, and lead a normal, active life on a Saturday afternoon.
That, I feel, is the negative side of the Bill. The positive side is much more exciting for the clubs themselves. As one whose constituency contains two league clubs, I can see the advantages that the Bill will bring to both of them. For the first time they will know who their supporters are, and will be able to identify not only paid-up members and those who have bought season tickets, but everyone who claims to have allegiance to them.
I understand that Luton regularly has gates of some 10,000 for a home match. Its present membership scheme comprises 20,000, and is closed. The membership scheme could well increase that number. If we assume a doubling of the average gate as the number who will identify themselves as supporters—the small clubs will, of course, benefit particularly—we can take that to be the number who, having been identified by name and address, will be available to those clubs, which will be able to solicit financial support from them. More important, the clubs will be able to find out why those people do not attend on a regular basis to watch their teams play.
That will help clubs such as Fulham which, regrettably, has fallen on rather hard times, with the average gate below 4,000 for a home match. It will enable the club to


find out why it is attracting such a small number, and to find ways of increasing support, to become financially viable and to bring about a resurgence in football's popularity.
The ability of the Secretary of State to license grounds will do much to see that managements, at League and club level, live up to their responsibilities. Throughout these debates we have heard how it has not been possible to ensure that managements run their clubs in a safe and proper manner. If, once the Bill becomes law, a management runs a club in a way which seems to encourage violence or with a lack of safe procedures, the Secretary of State will have power to threaten and, in extreme cases, to withdraw the club's licence. That will oblige managements to come more into the 20th century and be fit to run clubs in the 21st century.
The problem that hon. Members have highlighted with part II is that it excludes from attending overseas matches only those who have been identified as having committed an offence here or abroad. The success of that provision will depend on our convincing Governments abroad to prosecute British fans who misbehave at matches overseas, and I feel sure that we shall do that.
In general, the Bill is greatly to be welcomed and its passage will help to make football the popular family sport that it once was.

Mr. Pike: It is a pity that after the many hours that hon. Members have debated the Bill—I regret that I was not a member of the Standing Committee, much though I should like to have been—the Government remain determined to press ahead with it. The Bill should have been given a red card long ago and consigned to the rubbish bin, and I hope that even at this late stage, the vote soon will result in it having that fate.
The Government made the basic mistake at the start of identifying hooliganism as a football problem, when it is clearly a general problem of society. Hooliganism is occurring throughout Britain, not only in cities and towns but in villages, on Fridays and Saturdays, and often it has nothing to do with football. The present trend to hooliganism must be examined in a different way. It will not be tackled by this measure.
The Government were also wrong to call hooliganism an English football problem. One need only examine the problems that are associated with the game in other countries. In any event, the Government have a responsibility to prove that their legislation will deal with the problem that they claim exists. Or has the Prime Minister alone decreed that it exists? They have failed to show that it will tackle the problem effectively. Having studied what was said on Second Reading and in Committee, nowhere can I find proof that, had the Bill been law, the problems that the Government have identified would have been avoided. Our fear is that the measure will create more problems than we already have.
Nobody connected with football wants hooliganism to continue. The trouble is that the hooligans, who are certainly not football fans, will find a way through the system and into the grounds. The Bill will create more problems at gates and outside grounds and will not help to reduce the numbers required to police matches.
Burnley football club invited local Members of Parliament to visit its ground, meet its directors and watch a match. Its policy is that anyone who is convicted of a football-related offence is barred from Turf Moor for life. Only the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) accepted the invitation. The right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) and the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) chose not to attend, but they will support the Bill tonight. The hon. Member for Pendle has not been convinced that the Bill will deal with the problems that the Government have identified and has chosen to abstain. The hon. Member for Hyndburn will be voting against his party and the Bill. Other hon. Members should recognise that the Bill will not tackle the problem of football hooliganism.
If the Bill is forced through, it will lead to the destruction of many football clubs. The financial implications of installing and running the system, and the Bill's effects on attendances, will cause drastic problems for clubs that are currently experiencing financial difficulties. That will be regretted by many people such as myself who have been football supporters for many years.
As Labour Members have said, football depends not only on regular supporters but on casual supporters, such as those who are visiting relatives at Christmas and want to see a match. Often, when a team starts a successful run, casual supporters follow that team at further matches, but the membership scheme will deter that. The Bill is bad for football, and it will be a bad Act, if it receives Royal Assent, because it will not deal with football's problems but will cause more difficulties.
Unfortunately, after the Hillsborough tragedy the Government continued to press forward with the Bill. Local government, the police, football management and football supporters should have awaited the final report of Lord Justice Taylor in order to achieve a solution that is better than the Bill for football.
The Government must recognise that the Bill has not commended itself to anyone who supports football. It is opposed by all but one of the football clubs, by the Football League and by the Football Association. Everyone who has the interests of football at heart recognises that if the Government persist with the Bill they are once again being foolish. I hope that the Minister will recognise that and, even at this late stage, be prepared to withdraw this nonsensical Bill.

Mr. Shersby: When the Bill was first published, the Police Federation had reservations about it, which I expressed on Second Reading. To a large extent, those reservations were concerned with the ability of legislation such as this to deal with the problems that occur outside grounds in addition to those that occur inside them.
The federation takes the view that something must be done to deal with the serious problems that face Britain. We must face the fact that many hundreds of people have been killed or injured attending football matches over the past couple of years. That must be addressed by the House, by the police and by the country.
Since the Second Reading, I have spent a day with officers of the South Yorkshire police, who were intimately involved with the policing of the Hillsborough stadium disaster. I have seen and studied with the greatest possible


care the police films of that match and of the identical match that took place between the same teams 12 months earlier. I hope shortly to have an opportunity of showing those films to colleagues in the House. I was struck by the fact that at the match 12 months earlier there were very few problems outside the perimeter fence a short time before the kick off. However, at the match at which the disaster occurred 3,500 individuals were determined to get into the ground at short notice. Unfortunately, some of them had been drinking too much and 1,111 police officers had to deal with that robust crowd. We shall be dealing with that matter when the Taylor report is debated in the House.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shersby: I do not have much time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I know that the Front-Bench spokesmen want time to reply. We will have an opportunity to deal with that when the Taylor report is published.
The police take the view that although the legislation may not be perfect, it should he given a chance to work. The identity cards which have been the subject of our debate today will carry a photograph of the individual who belongs to the membership scheme. That will be a considerable advance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) pointed out in his excellent speech, that will deter individuals who go to matches simply to disrupt them. There will be no point in their attending because they will not be able to gain admission.
The acid test will come when the football membership scheme is published and the House has an opportunity to decide whether to support the action of my right hon. Friend if he approves the scheme. The scheme will result from the Bill, which is merely a framework to make possible a membership scheme that has the force of law. The police will judge the scheme when it is devised, published and submitted and if it is approved by my right hon. Friend. The scheme will be subject to the most careful scrutiny, and a decision on its viability will be taken by the House in a few months.
When the scheme is published, the police will want to consider the precise way in which it is proposed that it should operate. They will want to be sure that the FMA is well constituted and capable of supervising the scheme properly. They will want to be certain that the chairman of the FMA, whether a man or a woman, is an individual who commands the respect of the House, all those who enjoy football, the police and all those who have to ensure that supporters can go to football matches and return home safely. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister, in considering that appointment, will realise the importance of appointing an individual of great stature.
Until the scheme is published and until we know who is to be the chairman and who are to be members of the Football Membership Authority, the Police Federation will suspend judgment. In the meantime it is right to proceed with the Bill. Also, I will reserve judgment, on behalf of my constituents who are football supporters and enjoy attending matches in London and elsewhere in the country. A final judgment will be made by the House when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brings the scheme before us to consider.
The debates on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading have dealt with the framework and generalities of the scheme. We need to see the detail of the scheme and to be convinced beyond doubt that it can and will work. When that day comes, every hon. Member will have a much better opportunity to make an informed decision than he or she can in supporting the Third Reading.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Although the Bill deals specifically with England and Wales, there is legitimate Scottish interest and concern in what is going on. We are only too aware that, with a stroke of a zealot's pen, the same sort of provisions could be introduced in Scotland. We are citizens of a part of the United Kingdom with a great interest in football. I object on my constituents' behalf because, when they are travelling through the rest of Britain, they will be deprived of the ability to attend football matches as and when they wish.
I speak from a United Kingdom basis. Since its start, this misbegotten exercise has been based on a misunderstanding of the problem. The assumption, which is wrong and which has been the foundation of the Prime Minister's whim, is that the problem of so-called football hooliganism depends on attaching itself to football. That is not the case. All that the legislation will do, if it achieves anything, is move the problem from football grounds into town centres and on to transport. The people who are responsible for the core of the trouble at football grounds in England and abroad have nothing meaningful to do with football. They can attach themselves at any time, in any way, to another branch of society. The weakness of the legislation lies in the idea that legislating specifically for football will reduce the problems which have wrongly been identified as football hooliganism.
That the Government should produce this legislation is an admission of defeat. In 1979, after their electoral humiliation, the ultra-Right in Britain made it known through its publications that it was going to attach its efforts to football, with the specific aim of causing trouble and exactly the kinds of problems abroad which have now become so commonplace. Instead of weeding out that social and political problem, the Government have branded 1 million football supporters—a generic category of society—in this unique way. That is entirely wrong.
If the Government wished to approach this problem seriously, they would weed out the few hundred people at its core. Their conspicuous failure to do so has led them into this crazy situation tonight. To brand football supporters in this way and to set them apart as a category of society that uniquely needs to carry identity cards and to be subject to these controls is an affront to 1 million people.
I do not expect Conservative Members to appreciate that point, because they are not in the same category as those people. The 500,000 people who signed the petition and those who realise that they have been singled out in this way because football is the object of their enthusiasms, know where the legislation comes from and why football supporters have been picked out. For the sake of nailing a tiny proportion of their number, 1 million people are to be subjected to this indignity.
The bottom line of the legislation lies in this question, which has never been satisfactorily answered in my


hearing: what happens on a wet Wednesday night in November when, 10 minutes before kick-off, the system goes down and 40,000 people are pressing forward to get into a ground? If Ministers cannot answer that question, their responsibility for introducing this legislation is even heavier than it might otherwise be. If the Minister for Sport cannot give a guarantee—I believe that he cannot —that the problems created will not be infinitely worse than they are at present, he should withdraw the legislation, or there will be a heavy weight on his conscience if things go wrong.
Memorably, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that the poll tax would become known as the Tory tax. I forecast that the football ID cards will, and should, become known as "Tory cards", and may they be another nail in their coffin.

Mr. Denis Howell: After a long and sometimes tortuous examination of these measures, many Labour Members, myself included, continue to believe that the Bill amounts to a massive irrelevancy in dealing with the problems of football and the social problems that give rise to them.
The Government have panicked, for many reasons. It was no accident that when they came into office, Ministers immediately disbanded the working party that had been operating successfully for a number of years, which included not only those connected with football, but representatives of the police, the traffic and coastal authorities, British Rail and others. The working party had got on top of the problem to the extent that in 1979 we were able to lift the restrictions that we had had to impose on Leeds and Chelsea. Thereafter, the problem ceased to be under constant review. Because we are dealing with the ills of society, we need to be permanently vigilant; we should target matches and target groups of people who one knows will cause disturbances. But none of that has been happening.
Having come to office on a promise of eliminating violence in society and having faced an increase in that violence throughout her 10 years in office the Prime Minister decided that the one area of activity where she might be able to isolate the problem and take some action was football. She was wrong about it, but that was her logic.
As I said, we are discussing the nature of society, and we must not forget that a football team is a focus for the public pride of the community of which it is part. That is why millions of people who have left these shores have continued to wonder how their teams are doing.
I was very taken with what the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said earlier—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Member?"] Yes, and so he should be. We need to consider the problems of our society and what we are doing about them, and I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in that regard. He said that there was a crisis of adolescence in our society, and whether that description is accurate or not, there is not the slightest doubt that the demise of school sport and the playing of games at school—a demise which is being actively encouraged by the Government—is having an extremely detrimental effect on young people. I say this constructively to the new Secretary of State—the Minister

knows it, too—that we have fewer and fewer teachers of physical education. When PE teachers come out of our colleges, incidentally, most of them believe that there is something wrong with team sports. They believe that we should encourage people in recreation at the expense of teams sports, when in fact we should be encouraging both. The new changes in the curriculum, brought about by the former Secretary of State for Education and Science—the downgrading of physical education and team games—are also having a catastrophic effect.
Under Rab Butler's Education Act, the two compulsory subjects in the schools curriculum were PE and religious instruction, both of which have now been downgraded. I passionately believe that one cannot make such changes without reaping a damaged harvest. To add to all that, at a time when we should be encouraging youngsters to play games, we are also telling local authorities to sell school playing fields and to privatise sports centres where possible, thus prising out of those sports facilities the very youngsters whom we should be encouraging to play if we wish to prevent problems from arising.
We have a new Secretary of State for the Environment and we hope that he will look at these matters with a fresh mind. We hope that he will not be hidebound by too much tradition—as he should not be—and by the policies that he has inherited. We hope that he and his colleages will relate what they are trying to achieve in environment and sport to what is happening in education.
The Opposition oppose the Bill on the grounds of practicality. The major source of the problems with football occur outside football grounds. They lie with hooliganism at motorway service stations and the problems in our town centres and shopping centres. We know from what has happened abroad this summer that the people we are trying to catch will not register under the scheme. They will not say, "I'm a good boy so I'll register under the Government's scheme." The people who try to force the doors open at football grounds and who go to Sweden without tickets when they know that the match is all-ticket, are there simply to defy authority. Unless the Government start to tackle that problem, they will find no solutions.
John Williams from Leicester university wrote about these problems in his excellent book "Hooligans Abroad" in 1982. Seven years ago Leicester university—the only university researching the problem at the time, I believe —drew our attention to the matter, but the Government have largely ignored what was said. Quite properly, the Secretary of State asked us to consider what has happened this summer. This summer we have seen the growth of this challenge to society which, I have to say, comes from very Right-wing organisations.
I was grateful to the Minister for Sport condemning in forthright terms in an earlier debate the evil of the National Front and other Right-wing organisations—and, worse, the British National party. An excellent article with photographs appeared in The Mail on Sunday recently and I have had reports to confirm what it said. Apparently those people who should not even have been in Poland went to that country for the England match and also visited Auschwitz to have their pictures taken outside the gas chambers while they gave the National Front salute. That is the vile level to which some of those people have sunk.
Those people constantly desecrate our national flag. No other country in the world would stand for its national flag being continually contaminated in the way those people contaminate ours. They give the Fascist salute while they sing the national anthem. We must deal with those problems. They also disseminate Fascist propaganda.
It is no wonder why other European countries ask us why they should have our problems thrust onto them. They say that it is our task to stop those people going abroad. We support part II of the Bill in the hope that it will do that. However, we do not have a lot of confidence that it will.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, the net result of this summer's troubles —if the six people who have been charged are convicted —is that six names will be removed from the list of agreeable supporters. That is ludicrous. After the hundreds who misbehaved in Sweden, Iceland, Poland and on the ferries, only six people are to be charged. That suggests a tremendous breakdown in our relations in the Council of Europe on these matters. We must have a little sympathy with European Governments who say, "All we want to do is to collect the hooligans and get them out of our country as fast as we can. We must have a strategy for doing with that."
The Opposition have been accused of not producing any firm proposals, but time and again we have said that the only thing that will work is to target the matches where trouble will take place and target the groups that will cause that trouble or social evil.
I now refer to the lunatic decision not to wait for Lord Jusice Taylor's report before we put the Bill on the statute book. All hon. Members wish Lord Justice Taylor well. He must report not only on the horrific deaths of more than 90 people but on the competence of the Sheffield inspectors, the city council and the competence of and possible mismanagement by the Sheffield police. We cannot amend the Bill when we hear his findings. We must accept the Bill or turn it down. It is not good enough for the Government to continue to say that the Football Membership Authority will produce a scheme which will take account of that—it may do so; we hope that it will. However, we cannot duck responsibility. The buck stops here. The responsibility for getting this legislation right rests with Parliament. It does not rest with the Football Membership Authority that we are establishing. That is the Opposition's serious objection to the scheme.
Hon. Members know perfectly well that within a quarter of an hour of an important kick-off in the middle of winter, when people must examine photographs on cards and put them through some system, they will be totally overwhelmed if the computer breaks down. When about 15,000 people are trying to get into the ground, what on earth will anybody do? There will be total chaos and people will try to solve their own problems because the police will be unable to do so.
Police costs will be high. The only people who can arrest offenders will be the police. As the Minister said in Committee, that means that there will be at least one policeman on every turnstile. That will not reduce police costs. Of course there must be a policeman on every turnstile because nobody else can do the arresting.
The principle of civil liberties was put extremely well by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). He is the most distinguished athlete present in the House. [Interruption.] I am reminded of my hon.

Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey). I n a moment of generosity, I include the Minister for Sport. As the House well knows, his sporting proficiency consists of sitting in the back of a boat and being pulled over the finishing line by eight other people. No doubt he steered the boat very well, as occasion demanded. He steered the boat much better than he has steered the Bill through Parliament.
Grave civil liberty issues are involved in this matter. I sum them up in one sentence. It is absolutely monstrous that the Government have targeted this Bill against all decent football supporters. Impositions are being made on them. The reason for that is that the Government have abdicated their responsibility to deal with the evildoers in society whom they pledged to deal with when they came to office. For all those reasons, and because we know that the Bill will not work and that it will be an expensive imposition on football and our communities, we shall vote against Third Reading.

Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Everyone is delighted that he has been restored to good health. He handled admirably his leadership of the Opposition in Committee and of this evening's proceedings. I thank him and his Committee colleagues across the parties for their forthright but constructive and helpful contributions. The measure has been debated at great length. I am indebted to them for the tone and content of the proceedings both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I am also deeply indebted to my hon. Friends for their diligent and invaluable support.
The number of amendments that were tabled for consideration demonstrate the constructive nature of the debate. As the right hon. Member for Small Heath knows, we have accepted many of the Opposition amendments. He rightly concentrated, as did many other speakers in the debate, on part II and the international dimension. To suggest that the Government regard football hooliganism purely as an English problem is to be blind to reality. Hooliganism is a major international problem. During the last year, the Dutch Government have had to face it in far greater and increasing terms than we have. In many respects, we have begun to contain the problem, but we have not cured it. Hooliganism is increasing fast in many European countries, not least in Italy. It is a cause of major concern in the lead-up to the World Cup in June and July of next year.
It is important to work through the Council of Ministers and to have international co-operation, but it does not help to solve the problem if hooligans know that they can travel to a match in another country and be let in without tickets if they cause sufficient trouble outside the ground, that they can fight down town after the game and be arrested and locked up in gaol and then kicked out of that country the following morning without being charged. One understands the instinctive reaction of any country to wish to be rid of hooligans from another country, but unless hooligans know that tough action will be taken against them in those countries, the problem will not be solved internationally. That is why it is so important to work through the Council of Ministers, not


just with regard to the international dimension but with regard to bringing the hooligans to book so that we can implement part II.
Government are already trying to identify with the Italian authorities what the relevant offences are. People brought before the Italian courts and convicted will be subject to a five-year mandatory ban from travelling abroad to matches that are likely to be a focus for violence. That is a very important part of part II. It is another reason why it is so important to work together internationally.
There are examples of improved co-operation. I cite the recent Polish match where there were no incidents. There were problems away from the ground that resulted in sickening and appalling scenes, but the behaviour at the match was without incident, despite great provocation by the Polish fans.
I welcome the fact that the Polish Government took the decision to use the Football Association's list of known trouble makers as the basis for accepting or rejecting visas. International co-operation of that sort is to be welcomed. We need to ensure that, wherever possible, international co-operation and the implementation of part II is put in place.
Many hon. Members on both sides initially hoped that the Government would take action on passport control. It is impractical. Under current arrangements, anyone can go to a Post Office, and then to another on the same morning, on to another, to get British visitors' documentation to travel anywhere in Europe. All hon. Members know that cross-boundary movements in mainland Europe often involve no more than holding up a passport to a car window, let alone having it checked. So the Government needed in part II to find an alternative way of stopping known hooligans travelling to matches and the best and most effective way was to allow courts the opportunity as part of a sentence to determine that a convicted hooligan had to report to a police station on the day of a match which was likely to be the case of trouble abroad. That has exactly the same effect as withdrawing a passport, but it is foolproof.
Civil liberties will be safeguarded; the scheme will not interfere with them. Not everyone has the right to enter a football ground now: clubs refuse entry to thousands of unwanted spectators. Hooliganism infringes the civil liberties of others—shopkeepers, shoppers, the general public and property owners in town centres and near grounds—and, not least, the genuine football supporter.
We have taken careful note of the vital importance, when developing the commercial potential of the scheme, of the FMA and the clubs having to act in line with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1984. Members would have the right to see and challenge the accuracy of any computerised information held about them, and appropriate security precautions would be taken to safeguard that information. No details of convictions will be held on the cards.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath said some words about the working party to which he referred, with which I believe all hon. Members would agree:
I know that most of its supporters will understand how important it is in the long-term interest of their own club and

for its supporters personally, that we eliminate these disorders and make the support of our national sport the pleasure that it ought to be.
Football clubs might also suffer some financial disadvantage, but again my working party believes that this is a price that must be paid in order to overcome the problem."—[Official Report, 6 April 1977; Vol. 929, c. 1324–25.]
The Government wholly endorse that. Our only regret is that the problem is not only outside the grounds. In the past 12 months, there has been a pitch invasion at Southend, there have been 54 arrests at Portsmouth, 23 police were injured after stone-throwing inside the ground at Stockport, 34 people were ejected from inside the ground at Millwall last November, and there were 16 arrests inside the ground at Aldershot. Week in, week out, to my regret, incidents continue to occur inside as well as outside grounds.
The point about the discretionary powers of the FMA is that the authority will be able to ban for two years renewable anyone who brings the game into disrepute, inside or away from the grounds, in the vicinity of a match or at a service station on a motorway. That will create a real deterrent. Louts who think that they can indulge in one-off thuggish behaviour will suddenly remember that they can be reported to the FMA or come to its notice by any other means, without being brought before the courts, and they can face the possibility of a discretionary ban, in addition to the mandatory ban that the courts can impose.
This discretionary ban is vital. At present, anyone can be banned for life from any ground on the whim of the club, but we believe that civil liberties need protection, so there will be a right of appeal against these discretionary bans—a right that does not exist now. Such a ban would allow anyone to be banned from any ground at any time and for any length of time.
It is clearly important for us to have a framework within which we can respond to the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor. It must also allow us to respond swiftly to safety issues and to recommendations about ground configuration and the membership scheme. It is equally important that the Football Licensing Authority should put safety first and make sure that the safety of individuals is at the top of the list. Those are all part and parcel of an effective and comprehensive package of measures to keep hooligans away from football matches. I strongly commend it to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 204

Division No. 362]
[12 midnight


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alexander, Richard
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Aspinwall, Jack
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkins, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brown, Michael (Brlgg &amp; Cl't's)


Baldry, Tony
Browne, John (Winchester)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bruce, (Dorset South)


Batiste, Spencer
Budgen, Nicholas


Bellingham, Henry
Burns, Simon


Bendall, Vivian
Burt, Alistair






Butcher, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Butler, Chris
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Irving, Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jack, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jackson, Robert


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Churchill, Mr
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Key, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Conway, Derek
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coombs. Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Knowles, Michael


Couchman, James
Lawrence, Ivan


Cran, James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lightbown, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lilley, Peter


Day, Stephen
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dover, Den
Maclean, David


Emery, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Evennett, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Madel, David


Favell, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mans, Keith


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maples, John


Finsberg, Sir Geotfrey
Marland, Paul


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Mates, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stlrling)
Maude, Hon Francis


Forth, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Mellor, David


Freeman, Roger
Meyer, Sir Anthony


French, Douglas
Miller, Sir Hal


Gale, Roger
Mills, Iain


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miscampbell, Norman


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moss, Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mudd, David


Grist, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Ground, Patrick
Needham, Richard


Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, John
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patnick, Irvine


Hayward, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Heddle, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James
Portillo, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Price, Sir David


Howard, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Redwood, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham





Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rost, Peter
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tredinnick, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shelton, Sir William
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shersby, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walters, Sir Dennis


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Speed, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)



Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stokes, Sir John
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.


Sumberg, David



Tapsell, Sir Peter



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Coleman, Donald


Allen, Graham
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cox, Tom


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Crowther, Stan


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Bob


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Beckett, Margaret
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blair, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Eadie, Alexander


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Buchan, Norman
Fatchett, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Caborn, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Callaghan, Jim
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, John


Cartwright, John
Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clay, Bob
George, Bruce


Clelland, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Godman, Dr Norman A.






Golding, Mrs Llin
Morley, Elliot


Gordon, Mildred
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gould, Bryan
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Neill, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hood, Jimmy
Radice, Giles


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Randali, Stuart


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Geraint
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Reid, Dr John


Hoyle, Doug
Rhodes James, Robert


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rogers, Allan


Illsley, Eric
Rooker, Jeff


Ingram, Adam
Rowlands, Ted


Irvine, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Clare


Kennedy, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Knox, David
Smith, C. (Isfton &amp; Fbury)


Lambie, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lamond, James
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Litherland, Robert
Straw, Jack


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Loyden, Eddie
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAllion, John
Thornton, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Vaz, Keith


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wall, Pat


McFall, John
Wallace, James


McLeish, Henry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McNamara, Kevin
Wareing, Robert N.


McWilliam, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Madden, Max
Watts, John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marek, Dr John
Wigley, Dafydd


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wilson, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meacher, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Meale, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Michael, Alun
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendment.

Brunei (Appeals) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. George Foulkes: The Opposition concur with the Bill.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As I understand it, Brunei is now an independent sovereign state. It was formerly a British protectorate. It is appropriate that appeals from the courts of Brunei should be heard ultimately by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a sort of ad hoc measure. As Brunei is an independent sovereign state, what provision is there for the enforcement of the judgments that may be announced by the Judicial Committee in a case which comes to it on appeal from Brunei? There cannot be any legal authority in the Bill for the enforcement of any such judgment. Have arrangements been entered into with the Sultan of Brunei to ensure that such judgments will be enforced? If not, the role of the Judicial Committee is without any substance. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that matter when he responds to the debate.

Mr. Michael Morris: Our country has enjoyed friendly relations with Brunei for more than 150 years, and last year I had the privilege of attending His Majesty's birthday celebrations. To those of us who know Brunei, it seems particularly appropriate that in future, the Judicial Committee's advice should go to the Sultan rather than to the Queen. It seems appropriate also that the minimum value of any civil dispute should be raised to 200,000 Brunei dollars.
However, it is not entirely clear to me who is to define what is or is not a constitutional matter, or what will or will not be referred to the Privy Council's Judicial Committee. Nevertheless, the Bill appears to be an extremely flexible document and, given the developing and changing nature of that part of that ASEAN region, with which I have close associations, it can only help Brunei to develop its judicial processes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am glad to receive support for the Bill from both sides of the House. I hesitate to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on a technical and legal point, but my understanding is that the Sultan is bound to take the advice of the Judicial Committee.
I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). His question concerning the nature of matters that will be referred to the Judicial Committee is answered by the papers that have been placed in the Library, but if he remains in any doubt, I shall be pleased to write to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendments.

Orpington Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I have been privileged to represent the electors of Orpington in this House for almost 20 years. During the whole of that time I have had to fight for the retention of Orpington hospital's status as a general hospital. I have seen administrators come and go, each in his time having wanted to downgrade or close the hospital with preference for the building of an enlarged hospital with centralised services six miles away in Bromley.
Hitherto, all such challenges to the agreed status of Orpington as a second district general hospital serving the faster-growing southern half of the London borough of Bromley have been defeated. Local public opinion has been aroused, the obvious advantages of Orpington as the site of a district general hospital have been demonstrated and my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers concerned have always rejected such proposals on their merits.
I hope that tonight my hon. Friend the Minister will once again come to the aid of Orpington because the latest attack on the agreed existing plans for the hospital is more menacing.
Orpington hospital was built by the Canadian army for its own use during the first world war. Since then, as a result of serving a big and growing population, the original buildings have been gradually replaced and the services multiplied. It is to the credit of the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974 and the then Minister of Health, Sir Keith Joseph, that a plan was devised, and funds allocated, for Orpington's development to the status of a medium-sized modern general hospital.
Stage one, involving new buildings and staff accommodation, was completed in the 1970s. Stage two, which included a large new modern block known as the Canada wing, and costing £9 million, was completed more recently. The original plan was to complete the whole rebuilding programme by 1992. Funds were available and the site, covering nearly 40 acres—much of it green fields —was ideal. It is on the fringe of urban London, close to the M25 and to the notorious southern sector, scene of so many accidents since the M25 was completed. It is plain stupid to put a big new hospital complex on a congested site in the middle of an urban area where the traffic is densest. Yet that is what the regional and the district health authorities are proposing to do in Bromley.
The excuse for this gigantic planning and medical folly is, as one might expect, money. The health authorities reckon that, by concentrating all acute services at one huge new hospital at Bromley, they can do better for the district than by spreading the resources between the two existing general hospitals at Bromley and Orpington. Moreover, they think that they can raise extra money for the project from the private sector, by formal sharing and co-operation services. For the same purpose—the unkindest cut of all—they propose to sell off the surplus land at Orpington hospital, thus preventing it for ever from becoming a fully fledged district general hospital providing acute services and a round-the-clock accident. and emergency service, which is the ultimate object of the present and adopted plan.
The fact that the new plan has already got so far is no surprise to me. The protagonists of a bigger and better hospital in Bromley, lay and professional, have continually tried to grab the major share of resources available for the district, despite the small size of their existing site, and of the proposed site, in congested Bromley. Dominating the district authority, they have succeeded in closing the accident and emergency services at Orpington hospital—using the expedient of "temporary" closure, which does not need ministerial authority, but which drives down morale locally and professionally—so that the Royal College of Surgeons, noticing the fall-off in professional resources at Orpington, has already withdrawn its recognition of Orpington hospital for training purposes. Indeed, the hospital is no longer regarded as a major casualty centre for the purposes of major emergencies such as might occur on the M25, just a little way down the road.
It is significant that the prime mover in the latest scheme—the general manager of Bromley district health authority—has recently been promoted to the regional managership, so there is little chance of help for Orpington from the bureaucrats. The community health council for the district, dominated as it is by representatives from the other parts of Bromley borough, and even some of the professional staff at Orpington are impressed by the idea of a super-hospital at Bromley with the resources to provide high standards of professional expertise—which, no doubt, will be of great assistance in professional terms to the people concerned—on one site for acute services, using Orpington and other buildings for ancillary purposes.
I stand for the rights of my constituents, whom the plan will rob of their own local general hospital and for whom the level of services available at Bromley will never match the acute and casualty services that were on their doorstep. That is primarily why I am against the plan, and it explains why my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt)—all of whose constituencies are within the London borough and medical district of Bromley—are not supporting me on this occasion.
I am also concerned, however, about the possibility that the Minister will make a terrible mistake if he agrees to locate a new super-hospital to provide all the district's acute services on one site in Bromley town, rather than continuing the present duopoly. If there has to be one site, let it be Orpington—which is much larger and has better road and air communications, is nearer the M25 and has no traffic congestion—rather than the comparatively small site at Elmfield which is on only 21 acres and well into urban Bromley, where traffic conditions are notoriously bad. Imagine the difficulties involved in ambulances reaching the proposed new hospital at Elmfield during the day when the traffic is extremely heavy around Bromley town.
If it makes sense to keep acute services at Orpington, let it develop in accordance with the existing plan, even if, for financial reasons, they have to be spread over a longer period. Let us have our full-time accident and emergency services back, along with the professional staff needed to restore standards to the required level. Let us give Orpington self-governing status, as in the Secretary of State's proposals for the reorganisation of the health services, to show what Orpington can do with its great reserves of professional talent, land and good will among


the local community. We are fortunate in that the notable philanthropist, Sir Philip Harris, has donated vast sums for the benefit of Orpington hospital and the services that it provides. The hospital is well served and is held in high regard by the local community.
A super-hospital in Bromley may be only pie in the sky in view of the current economic downturn and the difficulties involved in financing and finding the necessary space for such a giant plan. Let us not destroy our existing plans and resources or sell off the land at Orpington until the planners and bureaucrats have at least proved that their hospital, when built and operating, is even better for the residents of Orpington than the one on their own doorstep.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): Although the hour is late, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has demonstrated yet again his commitment to Orpington hospital and to the health care of his constituents. His interest in both goes back over 20 years, and I know that he has raised the question of the future of Orpington hospital several times on occasions such as this.
To put the debate in context, I will explain the responsibilities of district health authorities. The local district health authority has responsibility for developing plans and consulting on the future arrangement of services within its district. That is not something that central Government can or should do. District health authorities have the necessary local knowledge of the health needs of their residents. Bromley health authority's plans have not yet been formally submitted to Ministers. We shall have to consider in due course any proposals for a new district general hospital, as Ministers must consider and approve any new major capital project.
The district's planning responsibility must be borne in mind when considering comments made to my hon. Friend in the previous Adjournment debate in 1986 and in subsequent correspondence. My hon. Friend reminded me that there were Adjournment debates on the subject even before that date. I am well aware of the assurances given by at least two of my predecessors that acute services would remain at Orpington hospital and that it would be developed as a district general hospital for the south of the district, while Bromley hospital would be developed as the district general for the north. As my hon. Friend will know, the best laid plans can be affected by factors outside one's control.
In August 1987, the local planning authority raised objections about development on the Bromley site—the northern site—and the following month the London borough of Bromley offered to sell the health authority a 21-acre green field site, known as Elmfield, at the centre of the district. In those circumstances, it was essential that the health authority review its plans, which it did by appraising a number of different options, including the new Elmfield site. It concluded that its preferred option was to build a new, single district general hospital of about 800 beds on the Elmfield site. This hospital would include most of the acute in-patient care for the district, with a number of acute rehabilitation beds at Orpington. There would remain a very important role for Orpington hospital

in providing in-patient and day care for elderly and mentally ill people, as well as a wide range of out-patient clinics.
I emphasise that point because, quite properly, my hon. Friend will wish to draw to my attention commitments given by my predecessors in past Adjournment debates. I have read the record carefully, and their comments were made in the context of a two-site district general hospital —one in the north of Bromley, and the other in the south at Orpington. Enhancements of facilities in Bromley have been prevented by local planning decisions. To that extent alone, I invite my hon. Friend to consider that there has been a change in circumstances since those commitments were given.
I know that Bromley health authority consulted widely on its new plans at the end of 1988. As well as inviting comments from a number of organisations, it issued a leaflet to every household in the borough, and two public meetings were held. I am advised that the majority of those who responded, including the community health council, local medical and nursing committees, the London borough of Bromley and others supported the proposal.
Under these plans, Orpington hospital would not remain a district general hospital, as the description is commonly understood, so I fully understand why my hon. Friend is opposed to the new plan. He has lobbied strongly for the development of acute services at Orpington hospital, and he has made his views known very strongly tonight.
The building of the new district general hospital will be subject to not only planning approval—my hon. Friend is aware of the complications of securing planning approval for such a major proposal—but to the approval of the Department for this £100 million project. As my hon. Friend will know, the financing elements of that proposal involve what we call unconventional finance—the facility whereby the developers constructing the new hospital will in part, or ideally in whole, be financed from the capital value of sites released from the other hospitals.
In any unconventional finance project, the Department of Health must ensure, as the Treasury would wish, that it represents the best value for money—that is to say, that it is a better deal for the taxpayer than if the health authority had spent taxpayers' money initially on constructing the hospital and subsequently receiving receipts from the vacated sites. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there is some way to go before the proposal is completed.
Although services at Bromley hospital might change, the health authority still sees it as having a very positive role, because 164 in-patient beds would be provided for the younger chronic sick—a service which the district does not currently have—and for elderly and mentally ill patients, including terminal and respite care. The range of out-patient clinics for all the main acute specialties would be increased and improved and would include for the first time an antenatal clinic.
Many new developments in the National Health Service are in community care. Orpington hospital already has a day hospital for the elderly, a day centre for people with Alzheimer's disease and a voluntarily managed hospice. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State hopes shortly to visit the hospice project. The plans for Orpington hospital would build on these community developments by providing day hospitals for the mentally ill and the elderly mentally infirm. The prefabricated wards


on the site would be demolished and there would be extensive new developments to supplement services from the modern Canada wing. The health authority feels that these developments would provide the local community with a range of services, particularly out-patient services, within easy access and in modern buildings. As my hon. Friend will know, about 85 per cent. of hospital visits are paid for out-patient services.
My hon. Friend refers to Orpington hospital seeking NHS trust status. He will know that Bromley's managers have expressed interest in forming an acute services trust which would encompass the whole of the district acute services and associated community services. That would eventually comprise the proposed Elmfield site, together with the Orpington and Beckenham sites. This reflects the district's plans, which we have already discussed. I understand that the sponsors of the proposed Bromley trust are now preparing an application to form an NHS trust. They will decide in due course whether formally to apply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
I fully understand the reasons why my hon. Friend may wish to seek NHS trust status for Orpington hospital in its own right. It is open to any unit to apply for trust status. If a bid is to be successful, it must meet a number of criteria. It must first show how the proposed trust will benefit patients and the local community of the particular unit. If the sponsors decide formally to apply to set up a trust for Orpington hospital, they should demonstrate that the quality of services to the people of Orpington would be enhanced.
An application must also demonstrate that it has suitable leadership and management arrangements and the commitment of key staff. Equally importantly, it must

demonstrate that it has the capacity to win and deliver contracts with purchasers of health care; in other words, it must be able to offer quality health care and remain financially viable.
Clearly, it is Bromley's view that the proposed Bromley acute services trust—that is, a trust including the Elmfield site and Orpington hospital—can best achieve those goals and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has agreed that it should prepare an application. However, it would be possible for Orpington hospital to seek trust status separately if there were sufficient support within the unit and the local population, and if it could meet the criteria I have described. My right hon. and learned Friend would then have to decide between the two proposals on their merits as he saw them.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing his views and the views of those whom he represents so clearly to the attention of the House and the Department of Health. I will give him an assurance that if —I stress the word "if" —and when a submission is made to Ministers for the proposed new district general hospital, I or a Minister from the Department of Health will visit Orpington hospital and Bromley health authority specifically on this issue before a final ministerial decision is made.
I am sure that, in the meantime, my hon. Friend will wish to continue his discussions about these matters with the health authority. I hope that he receives an excellent turnout at the public meeting that he has arranged for 10 November to discuss the future of the hospital, and that this debate will help to inform those discussions.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.